Edward Snowden

[EricBarbour]

is now one of the longest and most detailed biographies on all of Wikipedia: 238k bytes, 483 references.
Despite being only 10 months old.

An excellent example of Wikipedia's bias toward current events, things that net-nerds are interested in, libertarian and progressive hot buttons, whistleblower heroes, etc.

#1 contributor Petrarchan47 (T-C-L), with more than a thousand edits, ticks every box above. He grinds articles related to Deepwater Horizon, this nuclear plant, Monsanto, Buddhism, cannabis, and for some reason Decorah, Iowa. And net heroes. Not many WP editors have a prominent Aaron Swartz memorial on their userpages. He is obsessed with Decorah Bald Eagles (T-H-L). Also friendly with Wnt, Gandydancer and Binksternet.

The five longest biographies on Wikipedia (and therefore, the five people they think are "most important"):
George W. Bush (T-H-L)
Barack Obama (T-H-L)
Jeff Gordon (T-H-L)
Edward Snowden (T-H-L)
Pope John Paul II (T-H-L)

Fucking loony Wikipedians.

[Randy from Boise]

The five longest biographies on Wikipedia (and therefore, the five people they think are "most important"):
George W. Bush (T-H-L)
Barack Obama (T-H-L)
Jeff Gordon (T-H-L)
Edward Snowden (T-H-L)
Pope John Paul II (T-H-L)

Fucking loony Wikipedians.

It is a logical jump from "longest" to "they think most important."

The bios are the longest, yes, but the length has to do with availability of sourcing and number and commitment level of writers. Generalizing to say "thus Wikipedians as a group think..." is completely wrong.

RfB

P.S. My main man E.H. Carr sits around 204k, not far behind JPII's 234... It was as big as 227.7k. The really scary thing is that I've done almost zero on that one...

[Cedric]

P.S. My main man E.H. Carr sits around 204k, not far behind JPII's 234... It was as big as 227.7k. The really scary thing is that I've done almost zero on that one...

WP:SOFIXIT

[Poetlister]

It's another example of the obvious US-centric bias. There are plenty of people with whole (out of copyright) books written about them, such as Queen Victoria or William Shakespeare. It wouldn't take vast effort to make their articles at least as long as those five.

The other consideration is that many details about a person might be floated off into separate articles; you'd need to aggregate all of them to get the true Wikipedia coverage.

[Hex]

is now one of the longest and most detailed biographies on all of Wikipedia: 238k bytes, 483 references.

Thanks, added to Wikipedia:Articles with the most references (T-H-L).

[thekohser]

On a very recent episode of UpFront on Al Jazeera, Snowden said...

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

[Jim]

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

The rest of the world could see that as a Scary comment, Greg

[iii]

On a very recent episode of UpFront on Al Jazeera, Snowden said...

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

I imagine this is a (perhaps oblique?) reference to the Lawrence Lessig quixotic run for president. You could be safe simply not voting for the Lessig/Wales ticket.

[Zoloft]

On a very recent episode of UpFront on Al Jazeera, Snowden said...

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

I imagine this is a (perhaps oblique?) reference to the Lawrence Lessig quixotic run for president. You could be safe simply not voting for the Lessig/Wales ticket.

Safety is relative.

[greybeard]

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

Because you prefer one crazed, money-grubbing, delusional narcissist over a second one? Why ever would that be? At least Jimbo Wales doesn't pretend to be a statesman, most of the time. And thank the Goddess that he's Britain's problem at the moment, and not ours.

[Poetlister]

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

Because you prefer one crazed, money-grubbing, delusional narcissist over a second one? Why ever would that be? At least Jimbo Wales doesn't pretend to be a statesman, most of the time. And thank the Goddess that he's Britain's problem at the moment, and not ours.

Trump is a vastly more successful money-grubber than Jimbo. I have no comment on their relative levels of morality.

[SB_Johnny]

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

Because you prefer one crazed, money-grubbing, delusional narcissist over a second one? Why ever would that be? At least Jimbo Wales doesn't pretend to be a statesman, most of the time. And thank the Goddess that he's Britain's problem at the moment, and not ours.

Trump is a vastly more successful money-grubber than Jimbo. I have no comment on their relative levels of morality.

The Donald was born into wealth, The Jimbo wasn't. Otherwise the personalities seem mostly identical.

[Midsize Jake]

The Donald was born into wealth, The Jimbo wasn't. Otherwise the personalities seem mostly identical.

They are, but for those who don't see this as readily apparent, the real differentiator is this question of where does the narcissistic supply come from? Simply put, Trump's supply comes from wealth and acquisition, while Jimbo's comes from public accolades. We might scoff at the accolades because we know the people giving them to him don't know the whole story, but from Jimbo's perspective that doesn't matter - it's very easy for someone like him who's receiving such accolades to convince himself that he's totally earned them and they're completely deserved. Perhaps paradoxically, it's harder for someone like Trump, because money isn't directly equivalent to praise and admiration. Trump is forced to build a much more elaborate ego façade around himself to make up for this; the "bluster" and other aspects of egotism (if not megalomania) that we see from him are part of that façade, as are the buildings, golf courses, beauty pageants, TV reality shows, etc., all with his name on them, all "fabulously popular" and loved by all, even when they're not.

Ultimately though, it amounts to the same thing. For most people, an ego façade is a very fragile construct, like a house of cards. Trump's and Jimbo's ego façades are like medieval citadels, with walls within walls, moats filled with alligators, and bowmen at the top ready to shoot arrows at anyone who comes close. Within those defenses they can indulge themselves all they want; Trump obviously indulges himself more, because he can afford it, and (again) his narcissistic supply is of a lower quality.

As for Mr. Snowden, I wouldn't call him a genius and I wouldn't say his prescription for making the world a better place comes anywhere near the let's-drop-everything-and-follow-this-guy's-program level. There are relatively few people he can point to as "heroic figures" who have substantial name-recognition - his hero-qualification checklist is very specific and technical, and it's possible Jimbo may be the only name he can think of who checks all the boxes. It's kind of sad in a way, but in any event, it was a smart move by Jimbo to place himself in that particular niche. Since almost nobody else has, it will probably result in... you guessed it, more accolades, earned merely by adopting a position, stating it publicly a few times, and being the most recognizable public figure to do so.

[greybeard]

T... question of where does the narcissistic supply come from? Simply put, Trump's supply comes from wealth and acquisition, while Jimbo's comes from public accolades.

Not to quibble, but there appears to be more than adequate evidence of Jimbo's narcissism from the Bomis, Nupedia, and early Wikipedia days, prior to any substantial accolades. Cf his early bluster about having made "a fortune" in futures trading, a tale that now appears tall.

[thekohser]

“When you’ve got Donald Trump and John Kerry on one hand and people like [Wikipedia’s] Jimmy Wales who are improving the world on the other hand, I think it’s obvious which side that most people would rather be on.”

I guess I'm voting for Trump, then.

Because you prefer one crazed, money-grubbing, delusional narcissist over a second one? Why ever would that be? At least Jimbo Wales doesn't pretend to be a statesman, most of the time. And thank the Goddess that he's Britain's problem at the moment, and not ours.

Or... I'm making a joke.

[greybeard]

Or... I'm making a joke.

Well, it's Trump that's the joke, so joking about him is something like a double negative.

[Vigilant]

Or... I'm making a joke.

Well, it's Trump that's the joke, so joking about him is something like a double negative.

Most of the GOP candidates this cycle are bad jokes.

[Zoloft]

Or... I'm making a joke.

Well, it's Trump that's the joke, so joking about him is something like a double negative.

Most of the GOP candidates this cycle are bad jokes.

The GOP candidates are a writhing mass of raw id. I'm sad about this, because it's nice to have real choices when I pull the lever.

[Randy from Boise]

Or... I'm making a joke.

Well, it's Trump that's the joke, so joking about him is something like a double negative.

Most of the GOP candidates this cycle are bad jokes.

The GOP candidates are a writhing mass of raw id. I'm sad about this, because it's nice to have real choices when I pull the lever.

If you really feel that "choices" means selecting between the lame Democratic candidate and an inevitably-more-lame Republican candidate, your political life is a sad one indeed...

RfB

[Zoloft]

Or... I'm making a joke.

Well, it's Trump that's the joke, so joking about him is something like a double negative.

Most of the GOP candidates this cycle are bad jokes.

The GOP candidates are a writhing mass of raw id. I'm sad about this, because it's nice to have real choices when I pull the lever.

If you really feel that "choices" means selecting between the lame Democratic candidate and an inevitably-more-lame Republican candidate, your political life is a sad one indeed...

RfB

That's reading far more into what I said than what I meant. And you know that.