As other comments have already said, the submitted article is a personality profile article, and it's written in the manner of such articles. It is not meant to be a comprehensive account of Wikipedia and doesn't purport to be. I found it interesting, because I learned a few facts about some people I know in person that I hadn't known before.
The passion to build a worldwide online encyclopedia is a passion that can be shared by anyone who read encyclopedias for fun as a child--one thing I have in common with Wales. I think Wikipedia will have its greatest impact if someone can figure out the economic model and organizational model that makes possible a credible Wikipedia competitor--something like Google coming along when AltaVista looked unbeatable. Its position as unchallenged leader among online encyclopedias right now is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and Wikipedia's greatest weakness. A lot of the content on Wikipedia and a lot of the community experience would be most likely to become better for users and better for volunteer editors if there were a prominent competitor equally visible to readers, accessible to volunteer editors, and appealing to donors.
Wikipedia is arguably the internet's biggest achievement. Free. Valuable. Accurate. Up to Date. Volunteer run. Non Profit. Efficient. We can see the sausage being made.
It's really the gold standard for a website.
Two out of three ain't bad. I dispute "accurate" as a Wikipedian. I'm trying to fix some problems
with some articles that have been in appallingly bad shape for years. The last time I edited those articles, they were swiftly made worse by drive-by vandalism. I'll see what happens this time.
(i keep trying to find some way to contribute, but apparently i know less about everything that i know about than someone else.. so i just donate)
If Wales is rubbing shoulders with the high and powerful, and meeting celebrities for dinner then cool. I don't have a problem with that, I don't even have a problem with a musician saying "Dude that's wrong" and him updating it. The community balances and adjusts. He could have sold out and had a goldplated jet pack made but he's stuck at his idea and created a tool with worldwide reach and impact, fair play to him.
So he's a phony who got lucky and...made no money. It's interesting to see the targeting of someone for success along a different angle than politics, insubstantial celebrity, or 'undeserved' wealth. (Coincidence that RMS is on the front page of HN as well?)
The NYT has increasingly mixed its editorial content with its journalistic content. Quite often, I'll scratch my head at a linked article and then notice that it's blogs.nytimes.com or otherwise NYT-branded blogorrhea.
While they have to struggle to stay relevant, it's unfortunate that they've largely gone the HuffPo route instead of consolidating their strengths. It makes it confusing when reading event-based reporting, trying to discern the agenda.
I find it difficult to believe that. He's in an influential position at what many people consider the reference for the "truth" and there are many wealthy and powerful people out there interested in distorting that truth where it suits them. It's not terribly difficult to hide money from dubious sources and bribery around Wikipedia isn't something I just made up: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/13/wikipedias-dark-sid...
Jimmy is disappointing if you're looking for a saint. He's made a lot of mistakes. (I think he'd be the first to tell you that.) If he is exceptional in any way, I think it's that he is comfortable being a leader almost in the conventional mold, but he's also comfortable yielding to the full power of peer production. Maybe, ultimately, he can explain that kind of leadership to elites in the rest of the world, too.
Disclosure: I don't know Wales well, but I worked for the WMF (after his principal involvement) and have met him socially a couple of times.
God help the NYT if they ever run a less-than-godlike profile of, say, Elon Musk.
The underlying tone of the article is he isn't sincere because he could have cashed wikipedia out at any time (like IMDB and CDDB have before) and the reporter is waiting for him to do just that. I guess the fact that he was a trader before adds to it because traders are only ever about money.
In this day and age people can't have the interest of greater good and there always has to be an ulterior motive.
72 000 000 ad page views per month should earn him quite a bit, unless he sold his stock way too early.
(disclaimer: I do work there. :)
Wikia.com is a network of wikis that he founded. A really popular network that hosts the official Star Trek wiki among thousands of others.
Also, points in this article are flatly incorrect. In one section the author states that Wales has said "mum" (nothing) about Edward Snowden, when the opposite is true (and in current headlines - Techmeme cluster here: http://www.techmeme.com/130625/p49#a130625p49). Wales' interest in finding Snowden's identity as a Wikipedia editor - against Wikipedia rules - can be plainly seen on Wales' talk page dated June 25, two days before this NYT article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wa...).
This NYT article is very confusing. How much else in it is inaccurate? Was it a PR stunt?
Well that didn't take long. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Garvey
Quantcast has it ranked #33 in the US market based on directly quantified data, with nearly 2 million uniques a day and growing at a healthy clip. It appears very likely to end up as a top 10 to 15 US site. That's worth a substantial amount of money no matter how you cut it.
Wikia are those "personal wikis" for TV shows/alternate universes/fan stuff in general.
They also have annoying ads all over the place and all have really ugly MediaWiki skins.
$85? Cheap? In Nairobi? Is that a typo?
My point - as it seems I've failed to write sufficiently clearly - is that $85 seems very expensive for a "cheap" smartphone. Especially for equatorial Africa.
Also, I'm not in the US.