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?
--Pat
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
You telling me you've never changed the rules? you've never cheated, never abused the grey line? Integrety is in the eye of the beholder my freind. Morality has no effect on the internet, if it did, half of e-commerce wouldn't function. In the long run, what does it really matter what he writes about himself, or what he changes about himself? The fact that he changed information may be contrary to their "Guidelines", but really how bonding are guidelines? Acording to Cpt. Balbosa guidelines don't really mean anything, and he's right. What this all boils down to: If you think Wikipedia is enugh of a source for reliable information to be worried about integrity, you have issues.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
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
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 ).
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.