Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio

*Not* policy, just a guideline by idonthack · 2005-12-20 07:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

OP:

Wikipedia's policy on autobiography

Wikipedia's page, linked to in that phrase:

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.

Emphasis mine, on both. Of course, on the same page is this:

"It is a social faux pas to write about yourself," according to Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder.

Ooops.
---
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?

Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-20 07:47 · Score: 5, Funny

Oh come on... if someone vandalizes your bio to say "I love the cock" you wouldn't change it too?
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by BushCheney08 · 2005-12-20 07:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course I'd change it. The word "the" absolutely doesn't belong there.

--
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by shashark · 2005-12-20 07:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Barbossa : ."..the Code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner."
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by HardCase · 2005-12-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Funny

Arrr, matey, it's not so much a code as it is a guideline.

-h-
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by MikeBabcock · 2005-12-20 07:56 · Score: 4, Informative

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)
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2005-12-20 08:15 · Score: 5, Funny

Of course I'd change it. The word "the" absolutely doesn't belong there.

I think you're missing the point. The correct phrase is "I love my cock."

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by IndigoZenith · 2005-12-20 08:26 · Score: 5, Funny

This would probably have to be marked a "stub"...

--
"If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried"
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by JVert · 2005-12-20 08:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Has it really come to this now?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-20 09:14 · Score: 4, Funny

The correct phrase is "I love my cock."

That's a given - every guy loves their cock. The purpose of the article is to inform the reader of something they do not know yet. Thus, the correct phrase is "4 out of 5 dentists love my cock."
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by propagandize · 2005-12-20 09:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember Wil Wheaton posting on /. a while ago asking for someone to change an incorrect fact on his bio, because he didn't want to violate the policy.
Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Ratbert42 · 2005-12-20 10:59 · Score: 3, Funny

As long as it's not marked for deletion.

Why is this news? by Kelson · 2005-12-20 07:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:Why is this news? by suso · 2005-12-20 07:51 · Score: 5, Funny

I thought it was extremely silly that this showed up on Wired. Now it's doubly silly that it's shown up on Slashdot.

And now its become even more silly that people are commenting about it.
Re:Why is this news? by Kelson · 2005-12-20 08:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Does even its own founder really believe in it, when it comes to information he personally cares about?

Given that he made a few edits instead of locking it down, I'd guess the answer is "yes."
Re:Why is this news? by Echnin · 2005-12-20 08:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

Flamebait? Strong opinion and death threats are certainly bad, but as TFA says, "It is a social faux pas to write about yourself," according to Jimmy Wales. Despite this, he's changing the content of the articles because he disagrees with them--I've only observed first-hand the changing of "co-founder" into "founder", but others have implied even bigger changes. It's not like he corrected his birthday or fixed a typo.

--
Lalala
Re:Why is this news? by Kelson · 2005-12-20 09:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Since when is Wikipedia an "experiment in gathering information?" It may be an experiment in the colloquial, "let's see if this will work" sense, but I don't think they've ever claimed it was an actual scientific experiment.

Really, saying the founder of Wikipedia shouldn't make contributions because it's an experiment to see what other people will do is like saying that CmdrTaco shouldn't make comments on Slashdot, because it's an experiment in gatering comments from random geeks who have too much time on their hands.

You might want to take a look at what Wikipedia is and what it is not before comparing apples to oranges.
Re:Why is this news? by Kelson · 2005-12-20 09:31 · Score: 2, Funny

When the dupe shows up later today, will that be triply silly or quadruply silly?

I dunno, but when someone reads it in Tripoli...

NOTE: not a violation of "policy" by yagu · 2005-12-20 07:46 · Score: 3, Informative

A point of order from the slashdot "article"... from the article:

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

But, the actual link includes in the very first paragraph:

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.

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.

So what? by Pig+Hogger · 2005-12-20 07:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

If it's to remove bullshit and/or to straighten the record???

Wow. by Mille+Mots · 2005-12-20 07:46 · Score: 5, Funny

Stuff that matters. Finally!

Slashdot sez... by FooAtWFU · 2005-12-20 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.

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.

Re:Slashdot sez... by dorkygeek · 2005-12-20 07:59 · Score: 2, Funny

What do you expect when somebody named Carndildo submits a story...

--
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.

in other news by Tibor+the+Hun · 2005-12-20 07:48 · Score: 4, Funny

Well, as long as we're posting shit I'd like to add that I used the bathroom twice today, had a good lunch and installed a new monitor.
I'm also considering making a dupe of this post later in the conversation.
What have other /.ers done today?

--
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.

Re:in other news by Stephen+Williams · 2005-12-20 08:07 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm also considering making a dupe of this post later in the conversation.

I could almost have saved you the bother with my reply, because I've also used the bathroom and had a nice meal today. However, it wouldn't quite be a dupe because I didn't install a new monitor. Instead, I did a load of laundry and ironing, and packed my suitcase for a trip tomorrow.

Thanks for telling us all about your day!

-Stephen

Really... by ElGnomo · 2005-12-20 07:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Critical question: Who cares? Why is this important?

It must be "beat up on Wikipedia week" by yppiz · 2005-12-20 07:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

It seems like everyone is jumping on Wikipedia this week. Seriously, who's writing these talking points?

--Pat

Re:It must be "beat up on Wikipedia week" by SoTuA · 2005-12-20 08:15 · Score: 4, Funny

You think? ;)

Bit misleading by chrisbtoo · 2005-12-20 07:49 · Score: 3, Informative

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

He's not the only one getting caught by u2boy_nl · 2005-12-20 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:He's not the only one getting caught by dorkygeek · 2005-12-20 07:56 · Score: 2

And what's so cruel about that? The next time the article revision history is looked over, the changes are simply reverted. Past has shown that people are fast in reverting things!

--
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.

latest entry by joemawlma · 2005-12-20 07:51 · Score: 4, Funny

"Jimmy Whales also has a 12-inch... um, ruler?"

Write vs Edit by Valiss · 2005-12-20 07:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Write vs Edit by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2005-12-20 08:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Editing your own bio is just like writing it. If Charles Manson edited his to turn "murderer" into "serious self-defense practitioner", in his eyes he might think he's right and absolutely entitled to correct the error, but the result would be wrong.

I think the phrase is "you can't be judge and jury".

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Re:Write vs Edit by timeOday · 2005-12-20 08:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't see why editing your bio, espcially to correct errors, would be such a terrible crime worthy of news.
Simple: because it shows the anonymous masses got it wrong, which undermines the very foundation of Wikipedia. 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?
Re:Write vs Edit by tomhudson · 2005-12-20 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by timster · 2005-12-20 08:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:Write vs Edit by rbarreira · 2005-12-20 08:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is english your first language? It isn't mine, and I can still understand what they mean with these two sentences:

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

The first sentence is the general case. The second one is a more particular case of writing about subjects in which you are personally involved, in this case the subject being "your own life". Got it?

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:Write vs Edit by PenguiN42 · 2005-12-20 08:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
Re:Write vs Edit by technoid_ · 2005-12-20 09:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

And you have what to back up your statements? Come on, if you're gonna give the guy hell about editing his own bio, have some proof to your claims of what he is covering up.

technoid_

--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do - Lew of GO magazine
Re:Write vs Edit by rbarreira · 2005-12-20 09:27 · Score: 3, Informative

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
Re:Write vs Edit by AlvySinger · 2005-12-20 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

So when John Seigenthaler is libelled, the crowd shout: he could edit it to make it correct.

When a Wiki bod edits their own entry it's wrong.

I know this is /. a place where reason comes a distant second to dogma, but sheesh, really. At least having it every which way means you're never wrong, right?
Re:Write vs Edit by timster · 2005-12-20 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Blocking search engines from Wikipedia is impossible. The mirrors you speak of are generally not run by the Wikimedia Foundation; many of them exist to gather ad revenue and so the owners are unlikely to block search engines. Wikipedia's content is under an open license so there is no way they can exercise control over mirrors, and if the mirrors are going to be in the search engines anyway, what's the point of a robots.txt?

I guess until somebody comes up with a search engine that ignores popular sites that a lot of people link to, you're SOL.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:Write vs Edit by amigabill · 2005-12-20 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is your bio posted somewhere that other people can edit? If so, someone might edit yours to speak of child molesting or something like that. Why should you be limited to placing comments in the story's forum and waiting for someone to come along, decide he believes you and edit the bio atricle on your behalf instead of correcting it yourself directly?
Re:Write vs Edit by mdwh2 · 2005-12-20 14:22 · Score: 2, Funny

Man, then He-Man better keep a closer eye on his bio

It looks like He-Man already has been keeping a closer on his bio - "most powerful man in the universe"? Using words like "evildoers"? Such POV edits are why people shouldn't be editing their own bios in the first place!

i feel libelous by sardonic2 · 2005-12-20 07:52 · Score: 3, Funny

WAIT! didn't that dude who was involved in the murder of Kennedy change his own Biography? He's the one that started all this shit

Re:i feel libelous by w00d · 2005-12-20 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny

WAIT! didn't that dude who was involved in the murder of Kennedy change his own Biography?

Lyndon Johnson has been dead for more than 30 years; there's no way he could edit his bio on Wikipedia...

About WP:AUTO by thephotoman · 2005-12-20 07:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:About WP:AUTO by geoffspear · 2005-12-20 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Furthermore, it's his website, he can do whatever the hell he wants with it.
It's fine for you to believe that, as long as you're not also one of the people who belives that WP should be taken seriously as a source of unbiased research.
Personally, I don't care if he edits the article on oxygen to claim it has an atomic weight of 600, and then locks the entry from further editing. It's his website, and I don't use it for research. Those who do take it seriously should have second thoughts if he shares your attitude, though.

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.

Re:Integrity by Brothernone · 2005-12-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

That's an amusing trick by Demona · 2005-12-20 07:55 · Score: 4, Funny

considering Mr. Wales was shot dead last week. Apparently he's editing his own entry from the grave. (Sweet Lord, do those clowns at the Register need to get laid.)

--
Fuck Slashdot

you are an ass by Ender+Ryan · 2005-12-20 08:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

He violated nothing. Not rules, nor even the Wikipedia guidelines. He didn't write his own bio, he just edited out false information. Writing and editing are not the same thing by any stretch.

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

Re:you are an ass by TubeSteak · 2005-12-20 08:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

You'd think that since he's the FOUNDER, he would have some wikipedia equivalent of root.

In other words, why wasn't he able to edit his own entry without having his edits tracked?

Like you, I think the fact that he left his actions apparent for anyone to follow shows that he didn't think there was anything wrong with his edits.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Wikipedia is flawed by Oldsmobile · 2005-12-20 08:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Is this a good policy? by massysett · 2005-12-20 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

The article actually invokes some interesting questions which the discussion here isn't quite getting at. Wikipedia has a policy/guideline that says it's ill-advised for persons to edit their own biographies. The question is, is this a good policy/guideline?

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... by Brandybuck · 2005-12-20 08:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

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!

Re:Pirates by Sabotage · 2005-12-20 08:21 · Score: 2, Informative

I think you mean Elizabeth Swann:

IMDB page for Pirates of the Caribbean

There is a saying.. by Kutsal · 2005-12-20 08:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do as the Priest says, not what he does..

Sounds eerily familiar?...

--
Karma: Bad (but who really cares anyway?)

Not quite. by CarpetShark · 2005-12-20 08:32 · Score: 4, Informative

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 :)

Revisiting John Seigenthaler Sr. by TerraFrost · 2005-12-20 08:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure everyone knows who John Seigenthaler Sr. is - the guy whose recent criticisms have been the point of several slashdot.org articles...

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?

The latest attempt at silencing wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · 2005-12-20 08:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 ).

Wow, lots of anger so far... by deacon · 2005-12-20 08:39 · Score: 5, Informative

All modded +5 of course...

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?

Slashdot Mirror

Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio

73 of 411 comments (clear)