The best thing this guy did was nick someone else's good idea. I do not really follow WikiLeaks or its movement, I think they do some good but at the same time endanger peoples lifes by their work.

I have no real input on who should have won it but I would rather see Mark eating pot noodles in a skanky apartment somewhere.

You may call this mis-placed jealousy on my part, I call it an undeserved win for a spotty teen. I doubt he has any real input in Facebook, rather it's run by the people who know what they are doing. Serious amounts of delegation.

I have real respect for companies like Google. The guys there worked hard to get where they are and have some real brains. I read their paper which they published at Stanford on page rank, incredible stuff. They built their own db and servers. That's real talent. He made a website and got some people going to it. Suppose I could say the same for YouTube and eBay but I really don't think Mark deserves even 1% of what he has achieved.

Chris, what you're saying is: not that MZ is awesome, he is super awesome! Because he is a billionaire without any talent or vision, and if you and I think we have talent and vision and got beaten by him, then who won?

An idea w/o execution is worth $2, and great execution on a semi-foolish idea often results in a hit! Also, no idea is original; it’s all iteration on what exists already - like the saying goes: if you want to make apple pie from scratch, you'd first have to invent the universe. ;)

I think what you're suggesting is totally true about Google dudes having brains, but Zuckster has brains too, he tapped into the human psyche, like myspace, orkut, hi5, friendster etc couldn't. Apples to apples you read a PhD thesis (guessing) and are comparing that to a u-grad.

And finally, you cannot discredit him for not working hard (enough), that actually makes him smarter not dumber. ;)

I appreciate no idea is original and there was a hole in the market. Friends Reunited has taken their position of power as a given and not done any major updates to the site in years. Plus their paid business model was obviously a failure.

I am not really saying he is not that clever, don't get me wrong, I bet he has far more credentials than I ever will. What I am saying is, he doesn't deserve what he has. As you can see, I look at Google and appreciate their position and how they got there, I just don't get it with Mark.

The question really was, do I think he should have been made "Person of the year", the simple answer is no, I do not.

I like your objective comments though and can totally see where you are coming from.

No, Assange dide.

I don't really get worked up over stuff like this this, it is just an arbitrary title assigned by one publication owned by a massive conglomerate. These are time waster debates. Any time spent debating whether Assange should have won it could just be spent actually helping the Wikileaks movement. Fighting actual problems > fighting for worthless awards.

Good point, Mike. This is not a call to action. Not sure if we share the same idea, but person of the year used to be a big deal. It reminded me of Pres Obama’s Nobel Prize, until which it used to be a deal too. Talk about brand value dilution.

To clarifiy: the Times person of the year award has never been something that indicates praise. Hitler got it after all.

Similarly, the nobel peace price was worthless long before it was awarded to Obama, precisely because it was being awarded to people that had not earned it.

Person of the year is not the same as "hero of the year". I think it has to do more with who wielded the greatest influence on the world that year (for better or for the worse). Iranian president was considered as well sometime ago (and he is a nutty boy!)

Also, I don’t think it has to do with greatest number of people impacted, rather the avg impact multiplied by the number of folks affected. Wikileaks impact on say 30 million people * how much the average impacted individual’s life has changed > Zuck’s impact on 600 million people * the very marginal change in the life of average user. I also wonder if this change need be 'real' or 'perceived'.

raising awareness > winning worthless awards.

You see, the award itself is not worthless, because the real value in it is making the general population aware of yourself.

"Any time spent debating whether Assange should have won it could just be spent actually helping the Wikileaks movement."

Arguments of this form are always silly. I don't dedicate all of my free-time to any one task, nor do I have any desire to do so. I lose nothing by taking 2 minutes out of my day (2 minutes that would have otherwise been spent picking my nose or staring at the wall) to complain about Assange not getting this award.

Raising awareness is also a largely bullshit concept. It is the banner people who accomplish absolutely nothing waive around to feel like they've accomplished something. The only time it is valuable is when awareness is being raised about previously unknown information (which is what Wikileaks does).

Also, the argument is not silly. You absolutely lose something by taking 2 minutes of the 34,790,000 minutes or so you have. You lose 2 minutes. The better use of those 2 minutes in support of Wikileaks would be looking for a new leak or more realistically, circulating information that they've recently leaked.