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."

Comments

Why is this news?

[Kelson]

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.

Write vs Edit

[Valiss]

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.

Re:Write vs Edit

[tomhudson]

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.

This is dumb. ... the wiki is just as bad

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This particularly applies to autobiographies

The only person, by definition, who CAN write an autobiograhy about Wales is Wales.

definition: autobiography: The biography of a person written by that person.

Is english the first language of any of the editors of slashdot or wikimedia?

Re:Write vs Edit

[timster]

Nonsense. Anyone who has ever tried to write an article about anything knows that it is quite difficult to come up with something that is one hundred percent accurate. There are plenty of errors in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as demonstrated by the recent study.

Please distinguish between the PROCESS of Wikipedia and the CONTENT of Wikipedia. Certainly it's possible to find errors in the content, but these do not prove that the process is invalid unless the number of errors is excessive (see again the recent study). Similarly, attempting to "prove" that the process is invalid through some logical stroke (as you have attempted to do) is irrelevant unless you can show that the theoretical problems with the process do meaningful damage to the content.

Re:Write vs Edit

[PenguiN42]

Simple: because it shows the anonymous masses got it wrong, which undermines the very foundation of Wikipedia.

The "very foundation of Wikipedia" is not that the "anonymous masses" will get everything 100% correct. Claiming that this is the case is a pretty disingenuous strawman. I see you got 5 insightful points out of it, too, which points to a growing, somewhat confusing, anti-wikipedia fever on Slashdot.

If nothing else, what does it say for the accuracy of the vast majority of Wikipedia biographies about people who *don't* closely monitor their own entries?

This has nothing to do with biographies, but rather is about all articles on wikipedia: There are going to be some mistakes. Don't use an encyclopedia as a primary source. Nothing new here, please move along.

Umm, has anyone looked up "autobiography"

[NotQuiteReal]

You know, the key feature of an autobiography is for one to write about one's self.