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."
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.
If it's to remove bullshit and/or to straighten the record???
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!
Critical question: Who cares? Why is this important?
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
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.
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
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
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!
You're referring to John Siegenthaler of course. I find it interesting that while it is not policy to edit one's bio and is considered a social "faux pas" if you do, when Mr. Siegenthaler complained about his bio, he was told he should have edited it himself. Doublethink lives!
Of course, this is old news.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Do as the Priest says, not what he does..
Sounds eerily familiar?...
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)
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?
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.
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: