I came upon a vague reference to this hero of Usenet while reading wikien-l. Look at this article. Why is this guy notable? This would not be tolerated absent a fan cruft devotion to Usenet deep at the heart of Wikipedia. The article also gives raise to the phrase "heavily referenced but poorly sourced."

This is ridiculous.

I participated in usenet boards in the 1980s. I recall quite a few prolific contributors, some of them extremely gifted writers. My favorites were not the technical board topics. I was fond of the fine arts topics, being amazed to find them on a computer. Most contributors were either technical persons or university professors or graduate students. At that juncture, the only institutions using the internet, and having email were universities (big ones) and hi-tech firms.

I still have some of that material in my files, and some of the material is stellar, but I wouldn't say it warranted an encyclopedia bio for any of the writers. (I can imagine a WP debate; "did it make the NY Times? or any major publication?, if a non-cabal person tried to defend it).

This has to be a COI case (possibly written by Mr. Nicoll himself), or at least a "hommage" posted by a fringe sci-fi usenet afficianado. And this doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia at all.

Most of this article's "references" are usenet boards, (the pre-www-internet chatboards from 20 years ago) which is no better than the blogs that Wikipedia outlawed as a source.

Another "Wikipedia special". i.e. "We all know about this technical topic and the world revolves around our technical topic favorites and so should Wikipedia".

Totally "out of it".

While it's clearly an article that should stick around, it's interesting to see JzG being the one who closed the deletion discussion early. There's a lot I could say here, and won't.

What I had hoped to start is a discussion of the wholesale importation of dysfunction of from Usenet into WP. One aspect seems to be silly ass amateur sociology where the idle insights of fools are elevated into guiding principles. I leave this in the hands of Usenet veterans.

The emergence of dysfunction in WP may be a reflection of comparable dysfunction observed elsewhere in the culture, but I believe the dysfunction is so ubiquitous and so pervasive that no particular modern source can be singled out. The dysfunction dates back to the dawn of civilization.

I believe one of Mr. Wales' formative internet experience was running the newsgroup Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy. Suggested subtitle Quack Philosophy in a Dysfunction Medium.

The novels of Ayn Rand are the opposite of a Bildungsroman. Her characters do not undergo a development and growth process.

Jimbo Wales also strikes me as an untempered figure who exhibits characteristics of arrested development.

Was it the flashlight that gave it away?

Nah, it was his failure to peg WP anywhere along the Kohlberg-Gilligan progression in the development of ethical reasoning and practices.