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."
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)
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.
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.