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?
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???
Stuff that matters. Finally!
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.
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. /.ers done today?
I'm also considering making a dupe of this post later in the conversation.
What have other
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Critical question: Who cares? Why is this important?
--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
"Jimmy Whales also has a 12-inch... um, ruler?"
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.
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
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 :)
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 ).
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.
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 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.