Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio
Carnildo writes "Wired News reports that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has edited his own entry in the online encyclopedia at least 18 times, in violation of Wikipedia's policy on autobiography. Edits included removing phrases describing Larry Sanger as a co-founder of Wikipedia, and changing phrasing describing Bomis.com, another of Wales' sites, as a pornography site."
---
PS - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
I thought it was extremely silly that this showed up on Wired. Now it's doubly silly that it's shown up on Slashdot.
I mean, seriously, the last time there was a controversy over someone's Wikipedia bio, the suggestion was that he should've fixed the errors himself, right?
As for violating policy -- that "policy" itself says "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." In RFC terms, that's a SHOULD NOT, rather than a MUST NOT. (And that's not a new, self-justifying edit, either.) Yeah, it's a little tacky, but as long as he's making corrections and not inserting falsehoods, it's a matter for a gossip column, not tech news.
A point of order from the slashdot "article"... from the article:
But, the actual link includes in the very first paragraph:
While there may be a patina of suspicion for self-edited bio's, it doesn't sound like Wales committed any overt actions warranting this scrutiny. (for example, I've just visited bomis.com, and had it not been referred to in this article as potentially a porn or soft-porn site, I never would have guessed by scanning the home page -- his "correction" is probably warranted.) I guess it's a price to pay for the internet fame.
If it's to remove bullshit and/or to straighten the record???
Stuff that matters. Finally!
I mean, come on. If you want to throw dirt at Wikipedia, can't you come up with something better than this? Not news, people. Not news at all.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
If I were in his shoes, I'd be asking myself "what does this do to the perceived integrity of my website when I am allowed to subvert the rules simply because I created it?"
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
He's the founder. Mr Rule Maker doesn't break rules, he makes them.
his website - he founded it....He sets the rules and the policy - Why is this such a big deal? We don't complain (too loudly :) ) when dupes happen here, or things are changed. It IS Taco's site, much like Wikipedia is his own...
My MythTV HowTo
Well, as long as we're posting shit I'd like to add that I used the bathroom twice today, had a good lunch and installed a new monitor. /.ers done today?
I'm also considering making a dupe of this post later in the conversation.
What have other
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
I'd expect one to be editor one's own autobiography, as an autobiography is a biography written by the person in question.
Next article, please.
Critical question: Who cares? Why is this important?
--Pat
First, it's a guideline, not a policy.
Also, the first revision of the Autobiography page states:
This is a proposed new guideline. Don't take it seriously yet!!
If you, or something you are responsible for, is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, somebody else will do it soon enough. Let them do it.
Note that this guideline is not intended to discourage people who have articles about themselves or their works from contributing to those articles in the interests of accuracy and fairness.
JW didn't edit the page until over a year after it was created, so not really against the guideline, either.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
Recently Adam Curry was caught changing the Wikipedia article about 'podcasting'. (You know, the amazing technology which allows you to download audio from the internet and then listen to it!!!!)
Former MTV veejay and podcasting entrepreneur Adam Curry appears to have been caught anonymously editing the podcasting entry on Wikipedia to remove credit from other people and inflate his role in its creation.
http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2818
Elizabeth Sparrow: You're pirates. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway.
And if you READ the "policy", it says: "However, it is not policy." Don't flame me, I like Wikipedia, too. But this underscores yet again the inherent problem with the site.
How does the fact that someone misquoted a document (in this case by claiming that it is policy, when the document clearly states otherwise) underscore an inherent problem with said document?
.....Wikipedia needs any more bad press. Having him violate his own rules doesn't inspire confidence in terms of making it a legit research tool.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
"Jimmy Whales also has a 12-inch... um, ruler?"
Or did he think that the fanatic refreshers on Wikipedia that normally hash over every little tiny edit that pops up would look the other way because they worship him like some kind of internet God? I'd give $20 to know what he was thinking.
~Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Not that I have an opinion either way ('cause I don't), but it seems to me that he did not write about himself, but rather edited content about his entry. I don't see why editing your bio, espcially to correct errors, would be such a terrible crime worthy of news.
-Valiss
WAIT! didn't that dude who was involved in the murder of Kennedy change his own Biography? He's the one that started all this shit
Actually, he didn't create the article, but has just edited it for factual information. This is perfectly kosher, even if it is a faux paus socially. Other notable WP contributors have edited pages about themselves, providing factual information only.
Furthermore, it's his website, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
It is difficult to write neutrally about oneself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing, unless you are Jimmy Wales. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself.
autobiography noun ( pl. -phies) an account of a person's life written by that person ... why can't he edit his autobiography?
Ummm
Will the madness never end?
considering Mr. Wales was shot dead last week. Apparently he's editing his own entry from the grave. (Sweet Lord, do those clowns at the Register need to get laid.)
Fuck Slashdot
How can an opinion be an error.
He removed the boomis babe reference to instead refer to it as 'adult content' rather then 'softcore porn'.
He also removed the co-founder of wikipedia repeatedly.
Basically he wants to make himself look good. Granted, that is human nature but to chastise others for it makes you look even worse as hypocrisy is one of the least attractive qualities a person can have.
...in 2005. Apparently we are in desperate need of it and we don't even know what it is.
See: http://openpr.com/news/1594.html
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
That's what bothers me about Wikipedia...the info can change too fast. If you happen to be looking at the wrong time, you can be misled. I wish it had some indicator of what has recently changed. For example, a warning that the entry has changed in the last few minutes. Or maybe color very recent edits so you know they are suspect.
his movie - he made it...He set the action and the dialogue - Why is it such a big deal who shot who first?
Just wait 'till The Register gets a hold of this. This should be good for a month's-worth of "we hate Wikipedia, and we are't going to let you forget it" articles from them.
The only person who I can honestly say shows any integrity on the matter is Jimmy Wales, as he's not sinking to the pathetic level of his critics.
Way to go, Lord Dweomer, for getting sucked in and making an ass of yourself, spreading misinformation. You even got modded up for it. People have no fucking shame.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing. This is discussed in depth by post modernistis (who I don't agree with on everything, but they have valid points).
The problem is, that any point of view is in some way a personal point of view, there are always nuances, deletions and viewpoints that stress one thing over another. It is simply not possible to write about something in a neutral way. Even netural is a point of view.
However, I don't think this has ever been a problem untill it became a sort of myth that there is actually something caled a neutral point of view. This, I think the whole idea is quite recent and arrived with modern newspapers.
It still isn't a problem -I say, let all viewpoints be recorded, atleast all well written and well sourced viewpoints. I think it is fairer to the reader if a point of view is out in the open rather than hidden behind claimed netrality.
In the end, it is much better to have several points of view than one point of view that claims to be netural.
A mountain may appear a different shape when viewed from various angles. That doesn't mean that the mountain has no shape at all.
We are much better served by varying viewpoints.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
On the one hand, Wales' case shows why it might be a good policy to advise against people editing their own biographies. He insists that the other man was not a "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Wales is in a position to know this, and it seems to me to be a bad idea to bar knowledgeable people from editing articles. Clearly Wales is knowledgeable about his own life.
On the other hand, it looks like Wales was trying to rewrite history. It appears likely that his Bomis Babes was at least so-called "adult entertainment," the modern euphamism for porn. He often removed these references to porn entirely. This seems to be injecting falsehood and bias into Wikipedia.
A lot of the Slashdot reaction has been "why does this matter" but it really does invoke some interesting questions if you stop for a minute to think about it.
Penny - plain text accounting
How does the fact that someone misquoted a document (in this case by claiming that it is policy, when the document clearly states otherwise) underscore an inherent problem with said document?
I'm talking about the whole "should you edit your own bio or not" problem.
If you ask me, the minute WikiPedia was mentioned in a national news setting, it was time to nuke Bomis, or at least sever the ties.
babes.bomis.com says "Hi, Mom". Spare me!
http://images.google.com/images?q=bomis
Have they got internet enabled ouija boards now? According to the register, he's dead! Mind you, Netcraft doesn't confirm it yet.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Nobody every said it was a porn sight.
Read the fucking article asshat.
They said the boomis babes portion was softcore porn (IT IS).
He decided that instead of porn, he would call it 'adult content'
thats why. There is a growing concensus that Wikipedia is failing. For many years there was good will and a gee-whiz-thats-great mentality. But the bloom has gone now, its time to deliver and it isn't delivering in the view of many (although, that Nature article should be born in mind, and is another reason why Wikipedia is very topical this week).
Plays violent online games as: Nerfherder76
He who own the gold makes the rules...As a wikipedia co-founder he has a right to allow exceptions.
(where are the Bomis Babes?)
I don't give a shit if he's correcting errors about himself. I would encourage that. He knows his own life best, doesn't he? I see this more as a bunch of wikipedia haters trying to cause a stir over something that isn't. Now if he starts inserting "facts" about having 17 dicks and 19 balls, then people can bitch. But setting the record straight is a _GOOD_ thing.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
He should have edited the entry anonymously from a public library. No one cares if Wikipedia has random anonymous edits.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Wired News reports that Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Hung Like A Bull" Wales has corrected lies in his own entry in the online encyclopedia several times, keeping it, well, free of lies. Edits included removing phrases describing Phyllis Diller as a co-founder of Wikipedia, and changing phrasing describing Bomis.com, another of Wales' sites, as a pornography site, because it's not a pornography site, but an "hip and edgy entertainment portal", you got that?
"and changing phrasing describing Bomis.com, another of Wales' sites, as a pornography site" /em types "bomis.com" into Firefox.
Aw, man...
What exactly is it about Wikipedia that ruffles so many feathers? It seems like no other website has generated as much controversy as Wikipedia; is the Wikipedia foundation to blame or is it a result of the fact that the open source idea is viewed with more skepticism if it's applied to encyclopedias?
I just don't see it, I suppose.
Isn't an AUTObiography written by the subject by definition?
1. Edit founder of Wikipedia's Biography so he changes it.
2. Edit the non-policy page so it's a policy.
3. Submit news story to Slashdot.
4. Profit!!!
Ok, so im new at this...
mod parent down
something you write about yourself, isn't it? If this is the social faux pas to write about yourself, than all autobiographies are faux pas. (unless they are written by the host writer which is apparently not a faux pas). I'm confused.
Do as the Priest says, not what he does..
Sounds eerily familiar?...
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
can we mod the STORY down?
What a wonderful day for posts by Zonk! He allows me to waste away my time like no other. This is almost as good as watching daytime TV.
Zonk is Perverted. Zonk@Perverted.org
First RMS steps in it by saying nobody should use any non-free software (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Secti onID=13&ItemID=9350), and if they are working on a task that requires non-free software they should just not do the task ... then 2 paragraphs later he admits to using Unix to develop GNU, but says that was OK because he was only using it to stamp out "evil".
And now we have the founder of Wikipedia editing his own bio 18 times, despite strongly worded discouragement of that type of activity. And better yet, he is using some of these edits to rewrite the history of Wikipedia. I think I will have to tell my kids to steer clear of using Wikipedia as a source for any future school work.
Now, ordinarily I would let these relatively minor transgressions pass, but the fact is, these two folks are very quick to position their movements as "good versus evil". If you are so quick to sing your own virtues, you had better be above reproach, and clearly neither of these gentlemen are.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
I would like to point out that on Wikipedia, many users prefer to ignore all rules...
Ermm, you're forgetting that he is one of the masses too. No one is particularly anonymous. Nor is he special enough that his entries wouldn't be changed if others thought they were wrong. So, he's just another peer, contributing to a great site. Nothing new there for Wikipedia :)
Anyway, a common response wikipedians made to his complaints was that he should edit his own article if he felt it was factually inaccurate. If Jimbo Wales is in the wrong for editing his article, then I suppose all the wikipedians who suggested John Seigenthaler edit his own article are in the wrong, too?
This is just the latest FUD piece from a webzine attacking wikipedia. Many in the internet media have been attacking Wikipedia because it threatens the viability of their businesses. Despite millions of denizens' acceptence and support of wikipedia, legacy webzines continue to try and paint wikipedia as this evil rogue web venture hell bent on distorting truth. This is the sixth salvo from Wired this month alone ( http://search.wired.com/wnews/default.asp?query=wi kipedia ).
I agree with you but the problem with lots of viewpoints is that it's way too much information to sort through. A "neutral" view is at least a single focus point that can be digested.
Imagine having to read hundreds or thousands of viewpoints on each topic. Some would be different, some would restate information, some would have completely different information, many would have purposely falsified information... That would be impossible to digest and just the idea makes my brain hurt.
And not much analysis of facts on the ground.
Let's Begin:
Claim 1 from Wired:
Public edit logs reveal that Wales has changed his own Wikipedia bio 18 times, deleting phrases describing former Wikipedia employee Larry Sanger as a co-founder of the site.
If Larry Sanger was a co-founder, (I don't know and don't have time to check) deleting that fact is at the very least petty and vindictive. It does not really matter if it is or is not against some "code" or "guideline". Giving credit where credit is due is the right thing to do. Deleting credit over and over again... well, you will each come to your own conclusion.
Claim 2 from Wired:
Cadenhead said other Wikipedia editors described Bomis Babes as "soft-core pornography," but Wales changed it to "adult content section" on Sept. 4, and later twice removed references to pornography, instead describing it as "Bomis Babes blog based on Slashcode."
Going to Bomis Babes here: http://www.bomis.com/tree/babe gives me two sponsored links at the top of the page, cut and pasted one of them below:
Searching for Porn?
Sponsored Link
Find the Best Subscription Sites Search XXX Videos, Pics & More
FantasyFinder.com/CreditCardRequire
So at the very least the site has no problem with advertising for porn. Trying to find some pics, I find links to ring sites, cut and pasted below:
Hot Asian Sucking Whores
Sponsored Link
Cute Japanese School Girls Sex $14.95/Mo
Huge. No Limits. Ad Free!
www.guba.net
Still no pics. Maybe the site is just a search engine for porn, with no pics? Beats me, and with the lack of immediate pics I don't care, but "porn related" seems a fair claim.
I'll bite on this one.
You wrote:
In the end, it is much better to have several points of view than one point of view that claims to be netural.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV in the BLOODY leading sentence:
NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy which states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all views fairly and without bias.
Gee, the sound surprisingly the same.
I think Wikipedia is flawed. It is based on NPOV but there is no such thing.
Maybe next time your argument won't be so flawed if you bothered to search for "NPOV" on wikipedia and see exactly what wikipedia says it thinks NPOV is before you assume what it says and make an ass of yourself?
I guess Wired didn't bother to do any research on a subject before writing on it, why should you?
:wq
The "babe" page you refer to is a directory of female celebrities. Looks to me like most of the content there is non-pornographic, but it does include some porn, as does, e.g. Yahoo's directory of actors: http://dir.yahoo.com/Entertainment/Actors/.
Also note that boomis.com is something different entirely.
Power corrupts...
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People are tempted to use whatever power they have. Unfortunately, some people's domains are larger than warranted.
Jimbo Wales is a horrible propagandizing fascist who only pays lip service to the rule of law, which he thinks does not apply to him! if he keeps this up, we'll have to elect him President of the United States!
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/18/162523 8&tid=97
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud. Soon, you realize the pig is dirty, and he likes it.
If he was the co-founder, why did he edit it in a traceable way? If I were to do something potentially controversial and had the power, I would hide my tracks.
what kind of workd do we live in where we can't trust the accuracy or integrity of wikipedia?
Your wikipedia autobiography is written by YOU!
Frankly, I don't have a problem with someone contributing to their biography. Talk about authoritative sources! Sure, they're biased, like everyone else, but others then have a chance to edit what's done later.
If Wales wanted to do this secretly, he could have logged in anonymously. Heck, it's his site; he could have forged an entry from ANYONE to edit it. Instead, he made it clear that HE did it. Sounds like someone honest, not someone who is dishonest.
Before you criticize, make sure you understand it.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
You know, the key feature of an autobiography is for one to write about one's self.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Wow, Im glad I read slashdot today! How would I ever have known this very important leading edge news! Whew.. Thanks Slashdot...
Sanger was an employee of Wales. How he could be considered a "co-founder", who knows... That doesn't mean Larry wouldn't like to present himself as such.
If it was eighteen times a day there'd be cause for concern, obviously. But over a number of years? Probably completely normal for a celebrity of his age and sex
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
This site was purchased by osdn and Taco is more of a bearded taco to them if you know what I'm saying.
I mean, after all, who would know more about you than some total stranger?
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/276e9e77/m anwithhugecock.jpg?cb=1115204527 ?
Somebody must have missed something here. An Autobiography, by definition must be written by by the person it is about, duh! A biography is witten by some one else. If it is an autobiography then he should write/edit/revise etc it. If it is clearly labelled Autobiography then no one else should touch it.
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
Just edit it when he's dead, than he can't change it !
"The test of the morality of a society is what it does for it's children." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I don't know that Bomis can be called porn-related any more than the Internet can be called porn-related. Further, Bomis is no more a search engine for porn than ODP is a search engine for porn.
http://www.bomis.com/about/bomis_faq.html
What is Bomis.Com?
Bomis.Com is an Internet ring index and portal site. We index web pages into Bomis Rings. We also offer features such as free email, weather, news, and email discussion lists.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
If not I don't really see the issue. Not editing your own bio isn't some sort of absolute commandment or moral principle, it's just a guideline to prevent fights and unpleasent disputes. Often people are inclined to remove true statements or overestimate their own importance in their bios and it is alot easier to tell them they shouldn't be editing their own bio than have to argue with them and tell them they aren't as cool as they think they are.
If Wales was adding paragraphs praising himself, or if it is true that this other guy is a co-founder (rather than employee) then there is a problem. Otherwise what is the issue? So long as his edits ultimately further the accuracy of the encyclopedia that's great. The entire point of wikipedia is that you don't validate the editor but their edits.
There are always different rules that apply to the site manager/owner than the rest of the users. These are sometimes because the owner needs more freedom/control than the other users or in cases like this because you have to trust the owner no matter what. If Wales wants to skew wikipedia he has *way* more power to do this than any other user so you need to trust him anyway. The question is whether he is abusing that power and so far this doesn't seem to show that he is.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Some are multiple edits. If you read the list, beware the impersonator and vandal Jimmy D Wales (his version).
Seems to me mostly minor edits, surely not a vanity page. In the Talk page, Jimbo explains some (like his dislike of expressions like "pornography", or the fact he does not retain control over other editors).
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Do you realise you inspired this?
They also got the "the cock" error with'em...
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Omg, one should expect he's got some kind of top level administration rights, untraceable edits and "founder" like privileges as old fationed founders of software related products always had. Top dog of the project should be able to conceal whatever he is doing. But he is getting ass kicked by his own product. Founder got caught dirty on his own turf, muhahahaha.
I am growing tired of continued Wikipedia bashing. Wired has it right: Editing one's biography is discouraged. I would not say it is violating Wikipedia policy.
File this under the "who gives a fucking shit, anyway?" category.
"I don't see why editing your bio, espcially to correct errors, would be such a terrible crime worthy of news."
Except he wasn't correcting any error, he was deleting embarassing information about his past as a softcore pornographer and also inserting himself as the only founder of Wikipedia.
He was rewritting history, like in 1984; this is only one example of how easy it is to do that with Wikipedia. That's what's worthy of The News.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
Nothing is wrong with writing an autobiography. You can even claim a load of bullshit in it since everyone knows that autobiographies are totally utterly subjective, and biographies are very, very likely to present a polished version of reality. That's okay by the way, that's only human.
...but I think an encyclopedia entry is something completely different. Even a wikipedia entry. It may not be objective or the absolute truth, at least it's intersubjective because it is the complementary result of many people's opinions. Wikipedia, as far as I understood, is supposed to present a combined, "intersubjective" community description of a certain topic. Now when a person is editing his own entry, the whole community idea is ruined, isn't it?
For instance: this guy me feel he is the sole creator of Wikipedia; appearantly the comminity who wrote the description felt otherwise, and saw other important contributors. In the philosophy of Wikipedia, that's what matters, isn't it? And what Jim Wales gains from inside information ("he was there so he knows"), he loses in objectivity. Maybe, *because* he was there, the outside, the community is a much better judge.
It's like writing a review about your own book, it just doesn't make sense. From what I read, Jim Wales even said this in other words somewhere. It's a faux pas indeed.
And, sorry, I think the whole debate about "editing isn't writing" is kinda futile.
Aren't edits supposed to be done after thorough debate? How can Wales just single handedly edit stuff that he thinks aren't giving him enough praise? I mean, come on, it's like rewriting history. Sure, *he* felt they were errors. But Wikipedia isn't about individuals pushing through their opinions is it?
on the post about some notorious(?) guy having his bio vandalized (was it about he killing JFK?) the general consense here was "oh! he's a moron, he shoulda have changed it! (+5 obvious)"
...unles that other guy IS really the co-founder. Either way, he could have erased the changelog, wich he didn't. ...it's not like he stated that he has a bigger penis or something. Altough i think that if he did, this would be already duped by tac0 by now.
and by the post, he was correcting it.
A lot of people, including, damningly, many Wikipedia admins, believe for some strange reason that there is a Wikipedia policy against editing entries about yourself.
This is false. It persists because people allow it to persist, and because people with influence over the system (i.e. the admins) allow it to persist, in the face of a lack of consensus on the issue.
The concept of not editing articles about yourself is only a guideline, and not hard policy. The page outlining this policy says this. Regardless, plenty of people in WP who wish to define policy insist on calling it and treating it as a strict policy.
This may, in fact, show just how hopeless and useless it is to compile and communicate correct information. People will continue to push their agendas with their own version of the facts, whether its about Wikipedia policy or WMD.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Writing an autobiography is fine.
But I think the key feature of Wikipedia is "inter-subjective".
An autobiography is "subjective", which is something completely different.
If Wales wants to write an autobiography, then he really should do just that.
But the entry for his person on Wikipedia should present the inter-subjective description as produced by "the community", after all that's what Wikipedia is about isn't it?
Maybe an "authorized" biography or some such, but if someone else writes it, it is not an autobiography.
I really had no idea about the history behind the beginning of the Wikipedia. Sanger's post and Wales' edits and behavior indicate pretty clearly to me that Wales is a total douche who won't give credit where credit is due. Wikipedians are elitist snobs anyway. I only really used the Wikipedia for math and physics lookups, but recently discovered Wolfram's stuff. I think I'll stick to Wolfram. Screw Jimmy Wales, and screw the Wikipedia.
It does not really matter if it is or is not against some "code" or "guideline". Giving credit where credit is due is the right thing to do. Deleting credit over and over again... well, you will each come to your own conclusion.
I'd like to add to that: It does not really matter whether what the community wrote about him is true or false in Wales' opinion. That's not what Wikipedia is about. If that's how the community observes his role in (for instance) the creation of Wikipedia, than that's what the entry for his person should read.
And to keep things clear: if a Wikipedia entry is about a person, I really think that same person does not belong to "the community" who is producing the entry. It's just like reviewing your own book. As Wales said himself, or so I understand: it just isn't done.
That's handy - doubly proves the point too..
I blame it on Reagan.
You make it sound like magic. (So, does everybody else I'm just picking you.) All you do is open the SQL table and edit the entry. Wiki is a standard DB. I back mine up every week just like you'd back up any other DB.
This is not an illusion, a rip-off, or a ninja technique!
nowadays, aren't biographies always written by someone the subject pays to do it? so, which is the difference if Wales just *honestly* edited his own data?
my 0.02 euro contribute
Vanity press.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was the person who changed the reference to Bomis discussing pornography. It originally described it as an "adult" site, but I kept changing it to "pornography site". I also mentioned that the site is used for masturbation. Of course both my points are true.
My reasons for the change were that what I had written was perfectly true and correct but nonethless undesirable to the person it was written about. I wanted to test how quickly the reference would be changed regadless of it's veracity. After all the term "adult" is really more spin than truth and to my mind has no place in any type of genuine refernce tool.
To my mind, it illustrates how Wikipedia is not a valid form of reference because it has no genuine safeguards against bias which to my mind is often a much greater problem than sheer gross innacuracy. The conseual post-modernist process in which an article is distorted and revised means that nothing is ever really said with any degree of certainty or credibility. So it seems the encyclopedic equivalent of a jail house lawyer.
A democratic view of truth is flawed, and it will never be true that "vox populi, vox Dei" (The voice of the people is the voice of God).
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
Crow T. Trollbot
Lol :)
p.s. such an obvious joke and still someone didn't get it, hope you get modded up
p.p.s. I almost never receive modpoints to hand out otherwise I would have done it
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Nothing to see here, please move along and use your mod points wisely :)
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
If you try to add to the article any discussion that Bomis may be pornography, you find yourself banned, and the article is reverted immediately. My comments in the discussion section were also removed a number of times - so you aren't even allowed to argue in favour of a differing point of view.
I tried to add that some people believed that Bomis is in fact not "glamour photography" but "pornography", and found myself accused of vandalism and given the boot.
The sheer doublethink in the article is absurd.
Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses. If you had kept quiet, you would have remained a philosopher.
I caught Xeni Jardin of BoingBoing/NPR/Wired doing the same thing on her own article. But sometimes vanity is obvious; take a look at her webpage.
He's lying to us! There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
According to Carnildo, who submitted the post:
"My original submission described it as 'against Wikipedia's guideline' -- Zonk must have decided that 'in violation of Wikipedia's policy' sounded better."
Is it normal for Slashdot's editors to change submitters' comments into falsehoods? Now, if only Slashdot had an "edit" button....
This is something which I have been tracking for quite some time. Most of the edits Jimbo makes to his own biography are not for the purpose of removing personal attacks, such as "I love the cock", but rather to promote his involvement in the creation of Wikipedia or downplay the fact that Bomis Babes was a softcore pornography website.
a les&diff=27799694&oldid=27799660 a les&diff=27799453&oldid=27756307 a les&diff=26756907&oldid=26709690
a les&diff=26702273&oldid=26658959
a les&diff=25994722&oldid=25960410
a les&diff=22555355&oldid=22551871
Wales has gone so far as to have incriminating information about him and Bomis removed from the database entirely by Wikimedia developers; meaning it will not appear in either the edit history or the deleted items history.
Here are some examples which have not (yet) been deleted from the history outright:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
Above, Wales discredits Larry Sanger as co-founder as Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
Discredits Sanger, strikes pornography reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
Eliminates reference to Bomis Babes erotica section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_W
Eliminates reference to Bomis Babes softcore porn.
Mind you, if anyone else on Wikipedia violated this policy, or "guideline", they would be nailed to the cross, as has been done in the past.
It's his site. He can do what he wants.
Wiki is a bunch of self involved nerds who don't understand the propaganda value of information.
Wiki is a bunch of self involved nerds who don't understand the propaganda value of information.
Wiki is a bunch of self involved nerds who don't understand the propaganda value of information.
Wiki is a bunch of self involved nerds who don't understand the propaganda value of information.
Is it really?
Wow, this is kinda like that auction of someone's cat looking at the auction of Eminem's house on Ebay.
Reference to what I'm talking about
I edited my own Wikipedia entry because it wasn't written from a neutral point of view. I see nothing wrong with doing that.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
None of us believe that. You have to take Wikipedia with a grain of salt and realize that because anyone can edit it, and does, and frequently quite poorly, there might be errors. We all know that, and we work hard to fix them, but they're there. Despite that, it still just happens to be a source of good information most of the time, especially if youre researching a very notable topic. You don't want to quote Wikipedia in an Academic paper, that would be ridiculous, but if you want to learn more about a topic, Wikipedia is the best place to start, and it will probably point you towards other places that can further your research.
EvilPhoenix
Wikipedia Administrator
Reality is a dream.
And I'm not surprised that his simpering accolytes would mod a true fact as a "troll", twice.
`... I tried to add that some people believed that Bomis is in fact not "glamour photography" but "pornography", and found myself accused of vandalism and given the boot. ...`[1]
3 04794
c tion=history
I saw this doing a quick check on the history of Bomis. Here is the reference to the changes [2].
There are real problems in the way wikipedia allow rewrites on articles. Wikipedia itself doesn`t take any responsibility for inaccuracies, when there are technical measures that could be implemented to do this. Wikipedia does not identify who makes the changes. Making it difficult to verify if a change was malicious or valid.
It would not be difficult for users to gain XP [3] through group validated approvals to information, like in perlmonks. [4]
Btw if you think your having problems, check wikipedia-watch.org. [5]
Reference
[1] slashdot, `William Randolph Hearst - not forgotten`:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=171739&cid=14
[Accessed Wednesday, 21 December 2005]
[2] wikipedia, `bomis edit history`:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bomis&a
[Accessed Wednesday, 21 December 2005]
[3] XP or experience points are gained by group validation of posts. They are rewarded for good or acceptable behaviour and removed for the converse.
[4] perlmonks, `Perlmonks is a place where you can discuss Perl intelligently. Users start off as novices and work their way to Master gaining experience points gained through intelligent posts, articles etc.`:
http://www.perlmonks.org/
[Accessed Wednesday, 21 December 2005]
[5] wikipedia watch, `We are interested in them because they have a massive, unearned influence on what passes for reliable information.`:
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/
[Accessed Wednesday, 21 December 2005]
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
I don't see why editing your bio, espcially to correct errors, would be such a terrible crime worthy of news.
Because Wikipedia is cool and works well; it's hard to bash it.
It's much easier for WP's detractors to use ad hominem attacks against people involved with WP. Dig up a point where Wales violated WP TOS? Post it all over!
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
He was correct in explaining that Bomis isn't a porn website. It's in actuality a search engine, which, as I've read, displayed adult advertisements in an AdGooglesque style. A portion of this website had a section called Bomis Babes, with layouts of women in skimpy thongs, bikinis, lingerie, and what have you. Like Google if it was a horny, slutty teenage girl whose favorite activities included drinking and entering wet T-shirt contests.
ANONYMOUS DOES NOT FORGIVE
Removing Larry Sanger as a founder of Wikipedia is not just a faux pas. It's revisionism. It's going to become the archetype for the no-autobio policy.
Nobody else, by definition, can write an "autobiography" of "your own life".
Sure and they can. How do you think all of those wrestler autobiographies were written?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Well, I don't have an exact number offhand on how many have been published, but I know our library carries a good twenty or so. Most of them are actually fairly well written. I suspect they appeal to fans of the wrestlers who want to know more about their real life as well as their wrestling history, to people looking for inspirational tales as it took hard work for most of them to reach the position they did, and to people interested in the technical side of it. Supposedly Mick Foley writes his own books after getting disgusted with what the ghostwriter came up with for him. I suspect that, like wrestling, the books are an even mix of fact and fiction. Heh, but then again you could say that about almost any biography included most autobiographies.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
"Not the orginal AC, however english is my first language."
You could have fooled me!
i don't understand how parent got a troll mod if i was just expressing my opinion and wasn't being a dick to anyone. whatever, thanks mods.
Good karma sticks to me like velcro on a piece of plexiglass.
Move along, citizen.