Jimmy Wales on Larry Sanger, How the "sole founder" of the Wikipedia manipulates his topi Options

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

With reference to the discussion on how Wikipedia faithful immediately acted in the defence of no. 2 Mediawiki Foundation employee Erik Moeller's topic page following the "pedophilia apologist" allegations, here is a little bit of the backstory in the Jimmy Wales Larry Sanger incident that I did not know until today.

Whilst the Wikipedia is happy to trash any other individuals' biography with irrelevant, inaccurate or disproportionate badly written trash and refuses to put into place any obstacles for it to happen ... thereby exporting the burden onto others to fix ... it is obviously a different matter when it comes to their own.

This happened years ago and so is evidence to persistent and endemic problems with the Mediawiki Foundation's Wikipedia model. The scene, Christ Jimbo is surrounded by his faithful flock and ministers to them ...

((jwales)) Hi, I have a question. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
((jwales)) that smile is supposed to be impish and mock-innocent, as you shall see...
((jwales)) Under NPOV, is it true that Wikipedia ought not to make controversial assertions?
((jwales)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
((jwales)) "ts existence was officially announced by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales,"
((jwales)) So, I am publicly on record as stating, and I am willing to defend and explain at length why, here or elsewhere, that Wikipedia does not have any "co-founder"
((jwales)) Wikipedia has a sole founder
((jwales)) and a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie
((jwales)) now I don't expect wikipedia to say "founder"
((jwales)) but I do hope that this is not what wikipedia says about the wikimedia foundation
((jwales)) it is not just my POV, frankly, but we can leave that aside
((jwales)) it is just a simple fact
((jwales)) and I am willing to debate that with anyone who cares (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
((jwales)) but I don't insist that Wikipedia say it, because there is obviously a live controversy

((jwales)) avoidance is a good strategy

((jwales)) Larry worked under my direction
((jwales)) and I had to fight him tooth and nail to not turn Wikipedia into Nupedia, from day one
((jwales)) he fought the concept of wiki editing from the beginning
((jwales)) and the wiki was only adopted after he finally realized I was going to fire him if he did not follow my advice on stopping with all the controls in nupedia
((jwales)) I am just saying, the idea that Larry was co-founder is ludicrous, but i understand that I need to hurry up and write a book. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

((jwales)) Larry worked for me, at my direction.
((jwales)) he is in no way a parent of wikipedia
((jwales)) he is taking credit for all the great early wikipedians
((jwales)) who fought with him tooth and nail
((jwales)) until he quit

((jwales)) Larry wanted to ban perfectly good contributors but I would not let him, because I believed in the wiki way and he did not.

((jwales)) Larry is a smart guy
((jwales)) but he will fight to the death to prove he's right, even when he is wrong
((jwales)) so his ability to manage a community is something I very much doubt
((jwales)) not that it will collapse

((jwales)) I am just saying that I think he will have ongoing problems that he can't resolve
((jwales)) but let's be simple about this: we do a very poor job sometimes of protecting experts who are set upon by trolls
((jwales)) so he will get some good people who have found their wikipedia editing experience unpleasant
((jwales)) and hopefully we can learn to do a better job in that area. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

((jwales)) yes, doc, but he believes that some people will want to be "constables"
((jwales)) people who would love to work under the direction of experts It's always refreshing to get the unvarnished, internal thoughts, isn't it?
((jwales)) well the main thing is...
((jwales)) in free culture
((jwales)) if they make something useful, I cheer it
((jwales)) we can use it

((jwales)) in the caption under my picture
((jwales)) also, the info box says "created by Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales" - I would recommend changing that to "thousands of volunteers"

((jwales)) humblefool, if I tried to fix this myself
((jwales)) there would be a press scandal
((jwales)) so all i can do is whine that it is extremely non-NPOV

((jwales)) I think i could accept wording like "It was created by Jimmy Wales, with some early editorial work done by Larry Sanger"

((jwales)) something like that
((jwales)) "Sanger was the first employee Wales assigned to work on Wikipedia, and said..."
((jwales)) that's probably a bit extreme but it is the simple truth
((jwales)) more neutral might be
((jwales)) "Sanger played an important role in the early days of Wikipedia..:"
((jwales)) but failing to recognize the distinction between an employee acting under the direct supervision of his employer, and who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him
((jwales)) versus a "founder"
((jwales)) is the main issue
((jwales)) "Sanger is considered the co-founder of Wikipedia alongside Wales; however, in about 2004 Wales began to reject crediting Sanger with the honorary appellation, calling himself the sole founder and, while describing Sanger's role as important, emphasized his status as an employee under Wales' direction.[1]"

((jwales)) That's just bullshit

((geniice)) jwales it's what the sources that we can use tell us
((jwales)) geniice: most sources call me the sole founder, and there are reliable sources which detail the dispute, which is well known
((geniice)) jwales link?
((jwales)) geniice, please don't troll me right now, ok?
((geniice)) jwales some solid sources that list you as sole founder are required


((Glen_S)) geniice: a citation on 'co-founder'?
((geniice)) Glen_S why not?
((Glen_S)) they'd be tonnes of publications that wouldve (inaccruately) stated that though wouldnt there?

[Moulton]

Footnote: The above excerpt from #wikipedia-en-admins is sourced from here.

[Larry Sanger]

Yeah, I knew about this. I didn't know how legit it was, so I haven't ever talked about it. I mean, I don't for a second doubt that Jimmy Wales is capable of saying all these things, but it is an IRC log...

[Tarc]

Does anyone still carry the "sole founder" torch these days other than SqueakBox? Haven't seen an edit war or discussion on the matter for awhile now.

[anthony]

Does anyone still carry the "sole founder" torch these days other than SqueakBox? Haven't seen an edit war or discussion on the matter for awhile now.

I believe the new edit war is going to be over whether or not Florida is Wales' "sole residence".

[TungstenCarbide]

Yeah, I knew about this. I didn't know how legit it was, so I haven't ever talked about it. I mean, I don't for a second doubt that Jimmy Wales is capable of saying all these things, but it is an IRC log...

See my post here for some more background.

I believe Jimbo was asked on his Wikipedia page if these logs are real, he didn't answer. I rember others saying they are real but couldn't verify every word.

Jimbo says several times in these two pages that you were 'fired' for specific reasons.

If I had proof that a former employer was spreading around my back that I was fired for cause when I wasn't, I'd sue. No question. What makes it even worse is that he's operating in his secret star chamber (see my background link above), calling on the power of his loyal admin corp to work over your bio on the world's largest reference site. This is some world-class sleaze.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Milton Roe]

If I had proof that a former employer was spreading around my back that I was fired for cause when I wasn't, I'd sue. No question. What makes it even worse is that he's operating in secrete star chamber (see my background link above), calling on the power of his loyal admin corp to work over your bio on the worlds largest reference site. This is some world class sleaze.

Yes, but none of this is surprizing, as it's just the flip-side of Jimbo and WMF working over the BLPs of people they "like," to remove unpleasant stuff.

The practical problems inherrent with the entire WP "philosophy" of NPOV naturally show up first with biography, and particularly with BLP. Why? Because (as I say here regularly) the giant mutated brains of our species were developed these last couple of million years, for basically one purpose: social processing. Which is to say, reputation- and-loyalty assessment (and faking), witchfinding, blame-gaming, and various kinds of "court" and office politics. It's actually the major actvity in sports-talk, dirt-dishing, scuttlebutt, and so on. Discounting child-rearing activities, it's most of what human adults DO. "Primitive savage" paleolithic societies do as much of it as high tech iPhone carrying societies. In fact the REASON technology can be primitive, but society never is, is because our brains weren't originally developed to do math, but to do judgement and gossip (math is an add-on). When we get high-tech, we simply use it for better gossip (sort of like we use it for better porn).

So if WP has information-processing problems, and error-production, where are we going to notice it first? Not in the bias in science or math or astronomy articles. Rather in the bias in biography, and in the administrative system of the site itself. It's not that it's any worse there than anywhere else, it's just that our brains are better at detecting it. And we're more interested in it.

[A User]

Yeah, I knew about this. I didn't know how legit it was, so I haven't ever talked about it. I mean, I don't for a second doubt that Jimmy Wales is capable of saying all these things, but it is an IRC log...

See my post here for some more background.

I believe Jimbo was asked on his Wikipedia page if these logs are real, he didn't answer. I rember others saying they are real but couldn't verify every word.

Jimbo says several times in these two pages that you were 'fired' for specific reasons.

If I had proof that a former employer was spreading around my back that I was fired for cause when I wasn't, I'd sue. No question. What makes it even worse is that he's operating in his secret star chamber (see my background link above), calling on the power of his loyal admin corp to work over your bio on the world's largest reference site. This is some world-class sleaze.

Not just on wikipedia though. I noticed on a few media stories lately which Greg Kohs tried to correct in the comments section, an anonymous wikipedia fan pops in and claims Kohs is lying and that Sanger was never a co-founder. There appears to be a concerted effort to try and erase Sanger from the history books.

[TungstenCarbide]

The practical problems inherrent with the entire WP "philosophy" of NPOV naturally show up first with biography, and particularly with BLP. Why? Because (as I say here regularly) the giant mutated brains of our species were developed these last couple of million years, for basically one purpose: social processing. Which is to say, reputation- and-loyalty assessment (and faking), witchfinding, blame-gaming, and various kinds of "court" and office politics. It's actually the major actvity in sports-talk, dirt-dishing, scuttlebutt, and so on. Discounting child-rearing activities, it's most of what human adults DO. "Primitive savage" paleolithic societies do as much of it as high tech iPhone carrying societies. In fact the REASON technology can be primitive, but society never is, is because our brains weren't originally developed to do math, but to do judgement and gossip (math is an add-on). When we get high-tech, we simply use it for better gossip (sort of like we use it for better porn).

I think it's interesting how power ties into what you've said above. Ideally, the social processing and gossiping and politicking you speak of is a governing mechanism for a community; for example, if someone misbehaves people take note, ultimately applying the power of acceptance or rejection to pressure an individual's behavior. Reputation means something. (In sociology class we were taught that this instinctual mapping works for groups of up to ~100 people, after which it starts to break down and you need a system of laws.) Then, in walks power, which in this context is the ability to get people to see things your way. Power in the wrong hands can get some people vilified and rejected for minor offenses, or an unjust character assassination to occur behind their backs, while others get cabinet positions after years of molesting their pubescent babysitter with the knowledge of local law enforcement. Power is an interesting thing, it can direct people to rationalize almost anything, and 'which hunts' (and the opposite) are alive and well in the age of ipod technology.

Getting back to this thread's topic ... There is a very special place in my heart for sleazebags in positions of power and authority who use that power to unfairly malign a man, behind his back, with misrepresented grains of truth and outright lies.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

If there is a good case to sue Wales, please do ... and then take the moral and ethical high ground by using any rewards to reform/clean up/further pursue the Wikipedia.

Given his perceived status in your area of professional interest, and his army of unpaid serfs, I should imagine that whatever erroneous comments he is making ... if they are so ... would be seen as greatly damaging.

It is not a question of "bitterness or vindictiveness" as the Wiki-cultist like to accused ex- or outcast Wiki-cultist-apostates off ... it is a question of enacting responsibilities to the rest of society.

[Larry Sanger]

I'm not the litigious sort. I doubt many people believe I was fired because Jimmy Wales said so (though I've seen the lie repeated from time to time). Contrary to what all the Wikihowler monkeys say, I'm not vindictive. I only get mad when Wales lies about me. After I correct the record, I tend to get calm again. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) If the aim is to get the truth out, then let's do that, not get sidetracked with lawsuits--that's my attitude at present.

Of course, I'm not saying I would never sue...

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

At some point we are going to find a pro-bono lawyer who is going to be interested enough to join us, either for the sake of genuine public interest or perhaps just self-interest.

We should not dismiss it.

As I write, it is not about vindictiveness or avarice. There are some very good reasons to do so.

[EricBarbour]

As I write, it is not about vindictiveness or avarice. There are some very good reasons to do so.

Judging from some recent precedent, Larry might have a good case against Mr. Wales. However, it appears that such litigation is costly, and very few attorneys are willing to take on a libel suit, involving a former employer or not. Such cases usually involve "imputation of wrongdoing", not merely the idiotic public spectacle of a former employer trying to rewrite the organizations' history to remove the contributions of his former employee. Would make a great test-case, though. (Good luck scaring up the $50k-plus needed to get started.)

Too bad this didn't happen in the UK. Then, Larry could eat the WMF for breakfast.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Too bad this didn't happen in the UK. Then, Larry could eat the WMF for breakfast.

But thanks to the internet, it is happening in the UK as well ... isn't they some big hoo-hah about London becoming the libel capital of the world for litigation tourists because of its laws?

Sue now before they are changed.

[Moulton]

Litigation is a very dispiriting process. It would be more sensible to spend the money commissioning a comic opera.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Litigation is a very dispiriting process. It would be more sensible to spend the money commissioning a comic opera.

No disagreement on that. It would have to be Pro Bono by someone that cared or whose clients had suffered and was motivated.

A serious alternatively to a comic opera ... time to wind up ColScott, or who ever, and go for a celebrity PSA (Public Service Announcement).

Larry ought to be on the bill making his statement as "co-founder". All the networks will run it.

How many celebrities, VIPs, Britannica editor etc will put their hands up for it ... more than a few I am sure. Ditto, lesser individuals like Brandt who paid the price and know the territory.

It would also act as a promo for a full length documentary. Now would be a good time mediawise ... although after the book comes out would be a second chance.

[A Horse With No Name]

Too bad this didn't happen in the UK. Then, Larry could eat the WMF for breakfast.

Eww. Wouldn't Larry rather have something healthier for breakfast -- like fried eggs, hash browns, a few Andouille sausages, maybe a bowl of grits, some buttermilk biscuits and several cups of French Market Coffee? Now that's my idea of a great way to start the A.M. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[TungstenCarbide]

Litigation is a very dispiriting process. It would be more sensible to spend the money commissioning a comic opera.

It would be more effective to bring back dueling. Defamation lawsuits are extremely difficult to prosecute, nearly impossible in most cases. A defamer has to be a real idiot to leave documented tracks like Jimbo did.

While Dr. Sanger has suffered from from Jimbo's actions, at least they are in the open and he can respond. He's lucky. Some people are left unemployable and a laughing stock in their community due to malicious defamation, never having a word said to their face.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide:

[Jon Awbrey]

Litigation is a very dispiriting process. It would be more sensible to spend the money commissioning a comic opera.

It would be more effective to bring back dueling.

BTDT — Dueling Jimbos

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Defamation lawsuits are usually extremely difficult to prosecute. A defamer has to be a real idiot to leave tracks like Jimbo did.

In the UK it is the other way around ... they are difficult and expensive to defend, hence they are not.

But I still think a PSA is a better idea.