Given that that phrase is a snippet I've heard over and over in news coverage, it's inevitable that it will be repeatedly applied as other than yourself. It plays into a widespead mythology that success is purely a matter of virtute/good-attitude (anti-straw-man: I didn't say attitude has no effect at all), and a concommitant view that for those who did not succeed it's due to their unvirtuousness/bad-attitude. How could it not be used to "look down on those who tried and failed", given the part about "... stop the people who don't want something badly enough. They are there to keep out the other people." - that wording invites anyone who succeeds to think that the "other people" are lesser, the ones the wall is there to keep out.
And critically, this doesn't all exist in a vacuum. His intent might have been entirely benign, but that doesn't mean the overall effect will be entirely benign.
Ah,but you can try to overcome the obstacles in very different ways. You can accept the system as it is, and merely try to compete harder within all its parameters as an individual. Or you can group-organize with others and try to change way the system works - like anti-discrimination laws, set-asides, development programs, affirmative action, etc. (sigh, I know, I've said some things here that will not be taken well - but think about it).
There's quite an industry devoted to saying that accepting the system as it is and trying to compete harder within the game is somehow right, while challenging the system and changing the game through group action is somehow wrong.
Who built the brick wall there in the first place? Maybe the best action is to get some allies and to attempt to tear it all down.
I listened to the lecture and mean no disrespect to the man's spirit.
But that vapid aphorism sets my teeth on edge. I couldn't help thinking: Gee, all those people who hit a brick wall because of racism, of sexism, of poverty, because they didn't have all the advantages of a well-off handsome personable white guy - well, they just must not have wanted it badly enough. They're those OTHER PEOPLE who are kept out.
It's a damn nasty metaphor when you think about it.
Regarding "23. More open alternatives to Wikipedia" - I investigated this myself a while back. A viable BUSINESS is much, much harder than it looks. To begin with, note Jimmy Wales's separate commercial company "Wikia" is already in that field, and both Wikia and Wikipedia people assist in moving some content from the noncommercial Wikipedia to the commercial Wikia. Let me be clear, I don't say what they do is illegal (even if does raise eyebrows sometimes). But it's a fact that there's already a very strong established competitor, one with a huge amount of insider access that another start-up would not have. Moreover, while it's obvious Wikipedia has a huge amount of Google-juice, few people realize how difficult that is, and how many other sites have floundered in the bottom of the search results. So what's likely to happen is the start-up ends up with a website full of junk, or even worse, gets penalized by Google for having content that's too similar to Wikipedia and/or Wikia sites.
And critically, this doesn't all exist in a vacuum. His intent might have been entirely benign, but that doesn't mean the overall effect will be entirely benign.