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."
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.
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
There's a difference between writing about one's self ("Michael is a genius") and editing out others' comments about one's self ("Michael is an ass^H^H^H").
In any case, Wikipedia allows the viewing of historical changes; so people can be held accountable for such edits anyway.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think you mean Elizabeth Swann:
IMDB page for Pirates of the Caribbean
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 :)
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.
No I didn't. Apparently you missed MY point. The second sentence says exactly the same as the first one, it's just a particular case. Another way of writing the text would be:
You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This is also true if you're writing a biographical article, in which case you would be writing an autobiography
This is just a more verbose way of saying it, but it's exactly what they mean with the sentence... And that's exactly why the wikipedia article is called "Autobiographies"
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
If it wasn't Malcolm X, then whoever it was ought to be sued for false advertising.
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.
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
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.
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....
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