Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia Founder Edits Own Bio

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the poor-choices dept.

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."

18 of 411 comments (clear)

  1. *Not* policy, just a guideline by idonthack · · 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?
    1. Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh come on... if someone vandalizes your bio to say "I love the cock" you wouldn't change it too?

    2. Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by BushCheney08 · · 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.
    3. Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · 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"
    4. Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by IndigoZenith · · 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"
    5. Re:*Not* policy, just a guideline by JVert · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has it really come to this now?

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/12/16

  2. Why is this news? by Kelson · · 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.

    1. Re:Why is this news? by suso · · 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.

  3. Wow. by Mille+Mots · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stuff that matters. Finally!

  4. He's not the only one getting caught by u2boy_nl · · 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

  5. Write vs Edit by Valiss · · 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
    1. Re:Write vs Edit by tomhudson · · 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?

    2. Re:Write vs Edit by timster · · 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.
    3. Re:Write vs Edit by PenguiN42 · · 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.
  6. Re:in other news by Stephen+Williams · · 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

  7. The latest attempt at silencing wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ).

  8. Wow, lots of anger so far... by deacon · · 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?

    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.

  9. Umm, has anyone looked up "autobiography" by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.