How Jimbo gamed Wikibooks, in 2006 Options

[thekohser]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

[Jon Awbrey]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

One of the main things keeping a con game running is the resistance of marks to kenning they've been conned.

Jon Awbrey

[Abd]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

Somebody will notice, because you raised a big red flag here and started waving it. Pardon me while I duck.

Look, there is a legitimate question there, but you raised it in the same stupid, confrontive way that you've raised many issues. What's your goal, Greg? You just want to piss them off?

You can do it. You've proven that many times. Now what?

Raise the issue of hosting video game manuals, if you care about that. No, I suspect that you don't. I suspect you are looking for mud to toss. Bad habit. It attracts retaliation.

This time, Greg, you won't have anyone to blame but yourself. Jimbo isn't going to helicopter in and zap you with his magic blockaroo, getting everyone incensed. Mike.lifeguard will be watching, laughing. Or maybe he cackles, I don't really know, not having met the fellow.

You could end up proving that Jimbo and Mike were right, as to the banning. Simply not as to how they did it.

You can still recover this. It depends on how you respond to what comes down. Disappearing for a little while would be one device. Gee, I couldn't even check my Talk page or email, I was so busy with Real Life. It's actually a great idea, sometimes. Watch the fireworks and the flying embers from a safe distance.

They won't block you for what you did, not at this point, I believe. But you may well be asked about that post, you already pushed it with your "good luck and good riddance" goodbye for Mike.lifeguard, and how you answer could determine what happens, just speak your mind, Greg, and you are likely to be dead meat, wiki speaking. Silence, they will drop it, they have the attention span of a mosquito.

Hint: if you wanted to raise this issue, besides raising it without mentioning 2006 and Jimbo directly (but you could link to how the policy was established, if it's still policy, I haven't checked that yet), you could suggest to someone else that they raise it, on their own interest. Ideally, you'd have someone who wants to write a Wikibook on a game, ideally the person has it ready to go and people can even see it in user space. And then a decision would be made with something specific to chew on.

What it will be, raised like this ("I just want to know what people think") it cannot possibly produce any change, unless it just happens that the time is right and all you need is the slightest nudge. Almost never happens, even with blatantly obvious Good Ideas.

A real book will be a much better seed crystal.

Then, when someone else brings it up, you could make a quiet comment in support. If there is nobody who would support you on this, you do know that it's purely disruptive to raise it, don't you? Basic rule for long-term success: don't fight battles you can't win.

But, really, is Wikibook the place for this? Why? Why would someone want to put a decent book on a video game on Wikibooks, if they can put it somewhere else and get a little -- or a lot -- of money for it? Wikibooks is for free books. Without even advertising.

Why not put it up on Wikipedia Review? Get the traffic, get the pennies rolling in, right? If it's really good, you could offer to pay for it, right?

[Abd]

Okay, I'll see if I can start a backfire here. There is a point to make that might consume the tinder and keep this from blowing up. Larger issues will be raised.

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh good, yet another installment from Abd-Wan Kenobi's Unsolicited Advice Column —

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Ben_Kenobi.jpg)

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

[Doc glasgow]

I felt obligated to raise a rather disturbing set of facts about how Jimmy Wales manipulated Wikibooks policy to his own commercial advantage.

I wonder if anyone at Wikibooks will even notice or care.

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

[thekohser]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

[Jon Awbrey]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

You forget your audience — of course there is.

The history of the "dispute", the rules that were in place when you first started to work on Wikipedia, the astounding lack of integrity that Wales displays at every turn of the screw, the way he thinks he can brush off every breach of faith with a wave of his grubby hand — none of that makes any dent in the skulls of the craven shills who have come to infest this site.

Jon Awbrey

[Milton Roe]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

It might be your business, yet make no money. However, we all are sure, Kohs, that you control a "charitable foundation" from which you siphon content, depend upon to make you exorbitatant speakers' fees, and to which you rent server space, and charge the tab on everything from expensive wines, to train trips to see hookers.

Aha, you say, where is this giant multimillion dollar a year charitable tax-free thing? Well, give me time. I'm sure I can find it around the net somewhere. And when I do, I'm going to embarrass the hell out of you for taking advantage of the taxpayer, and so many contributors-of-their-free-time. Yes, I will.

Go get him, Doc. We've got him on the run, because I can smell the rottenness from him. Kohs, you immoral bastard.

[Doc glasgow]

This is ironic.

Wales is being accused of trying to influence Wikibooks, when he's (allegedly) got a commercial for-profit motivation. Thus he's using his position at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business, wikia - or at least that's the alleged bad faith we're supposed to read into this.

Oh, now consider.

He's being accused by Gregory Kohs. Kohs has a dispute with Wales over Kohs's own commercial for-profit motivation for using Wikipedia. So now, Kohs is using his ability to post at Wikibooks (a charity) in furtherance of his business interest, wikipediareview.

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

How is my ability to post at Wikibooks in furtherance of my business interest (odd, this "business interest" of mine that costs me about $300 a year, net, to maintain for my friends), Wikipedia Review? (I do prefer the CamelCase, Doc.)

And I'll apologize in advance if I've somehow forgotten the $4 million venture investment in Wikipedia Review from Bessemer Partners and the $10 million second round from Amazon. I mean, if that were the case, with so much to gain by manipulating a Wikimedia wiki, sheesh, I'd have to say I really was a hypocrite.



Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

Your vendetta against Wales originated in the fact he refused to let you use Wikipedia to make money, because it was against what he saw as its charitable ethos - so you now accuse him of attempting to do the same, ignoring its charitable ethos.

The difference is only he was accusing you of minor misuse of Wikipedia's purpose, you are accusing him of what would be a criminal misuse of Charitable funds. Your evidence? Oh, yes. He's evil, and you don't like him, so assume the worst.


(If Wikipedia Review is losing money, perhaps that suggests you also share his entrepreneurial incompetence - last I heard Wikia was hardly in the money either!)

[CharlotteWebb]

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

I'll admit I thought that's what the root words of the name were meant to imply. You know, in addition to operating through a wiki (NTTAWTT).

[dogbiscuit]

Is anybody else here as boneheaded as Doc, that they truly believe that Wikipedia Review is my "business"?

I'll admit I thought that's what the root words of the name were meant to imply. You know, in addition to operating through a wiki (NTTAWTT).

I am not the longest serving member of the site, and at times I have also publicly bemoaned Greg's blind spot in how to make his case without shooting himself in the foot, but one thing that Greg has never been in this is hypocritical.

Greg openly set up an editing service that allowed companies to have a presence on Wikipedia. Remember that Wikimedia is a 230 protected organisation and is not a publisher, it is just providing a platform. Greg went to some lengths to sort out rules of engagement. He was arbitrarily banned from contributing, and he was and still is libelled by the Wikipedian community who have consistently misrepresented what Greg was doing.

I have always thought that Greg was highly moral in the way he set up Wikipedia Review. It is entirely open, he makes it very clear that it is a business, and he does not improperly take advantage of charitable trust status for the furtherance of his private gain.

While I agree that there is a contradiction between treating Wikipedia as a knowledge based charity and seeking to make a business around it, Greg was always clear that he wanted that to be a business compatible with the right minded aims of Wikipedia, and part of that service was ensuring that there was accurate information about companies in Wikipedia.

[Avirosa]

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

Hypocrisy (whether present or not) is irrelevant, GK has given evidence of his claim and an indication of what institutional wrong needs to be address:

Now, I see that the current [[Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks|"What Wikibooks is not" policy]] includes two distinct recommendations to displace content from here (Fiction/Literature and Primary research) to Wikia, Inc. sites. Is anyone familiar with the notion of "self-dealing" when it comes to non-profit charity governance?

The transfer of assets (in the case of a Wiki the asset base is primarily its content) from a non profit taking entity to a profit taking entity should only be undertaken within defined terms if the npte is to protect itself against charges of incompetence or corruption. Of course any Wikia business, or Wiki hoster operation can act as a 'scraper' using the figleaf of licence agreemnt, but that doesn't excuse a publicly supported npte from actively facilitating the scrape - or in this case, gift of original copy.

A.virosa

[dogbiscuit]

So, unless we are supposed to assume Greg's good faith, whilst attributing any perceived motivations of Wales in the worst possible simoniacal light, I call "hypocrite".

Hypocrisy (whether present or not) is irrelevant,

What is interesting is that Doc is Koolaiding in his argument. Assuming good faith or not is also an irrelevance, there are tangible facts to be assessed - this is not something that needs to be assessed in terms of supplication to the GodKing.

AGF is one of the most manipulated and distorted terms on Wikipedia, and is usually the red flag for "ignore the facts that are staring you in the face".

It is interesting that Wikipedia can be so manipulated that simply because Greg raises a valid, fact based and researched issue, it can, and must be dismissed simply because of Greg raising it. ABF, indeed.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think this is probably another one of those cross-the-pond things.

See Ex Post Facto

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

[Doc glasgow]

Firstly, I am not accusing Greg of breaking any laws, or having any hidden agenda, with Wikipedia Review.

I'm simply saying:

1) that it would be best to say "hey Jimmy, this doesn't look too good can you explain it?", before assuming he's deliberately engineered it. Two things happened - a) Jimmy (and, presumably others) felt this material unsuitable for a WMF project. b) Jimmy's Wikia took the/similar material and made a success of it. Now - post hoc, ergo propter hoc? And, even if so, did the result influence the initial decision? In short, was their a "loss" to the charity (removing inappropriate material would not be a loss), and if there was a loss, was it engineered so as to profit a trustee? Where's the beef?

2) as for Kohs. His vendetta - and it is that - is motivated by his frustrated (even if legitimate) attempt to gain through Wikipedia. Thus he's hardly the best judge of Jimmy's good or bad motives. Neither, perhaps, are those here who constantly believe anything bad or conspiratorial about Jimmy.

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

[dogbiscuit]

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

I was just interested that you, known as an independent thinker, chose to express the argument in terms of good faith which, for me, is one of the most irritating mis-directions on Wikipedia. The feeling your post gave was that you were expressing the problem in the typical Wikipedian talk page way. I imagine a Wikipedian reading your post and simply seeing the AGF and switching off, no more to be considered.

Wikipedian antics get under everybody's skin, but I was especially surprised that you had chosen that form which suggested to me that you've perhaps been reading Wikipedian talk pages for too long.

I don't disagree that it is easy to dismiss Greg's points because of the way he presented them, I simply observe that you chose the language of Wikipedia to express the point.

[Jon Awbrey]

Yes, Doc, it appears that you've been so long at The Unfair that you simply can't tell Fair Play from Unfair Play anymore. Aside from your incompetent mis-sequencing of events as they happened, in that all too contemptibly familiar Wikipediot Minority Report fashion, and your blithe ignoring of the vastly different levels of power that are involved in the Abuse of Power, you fail to recognize the basic principles of Fair Dealing, like no after-the-fact crimination, that people of integrity take for granted.

As for the pretension that Jimbo does what he does out of some remotely consistent Ethos of the Project —

Seriously, Doc, you oughta have that looked at.

Jon Awbrey

[Doc glasgow]

The accusation that I'm "drinking the kool-aid" rather supports my case. Anyone who's followed my interactions with Wikipedia knows that I'm not exactly a great fan of Jimbo or (for that matter) of Wikipedia. But it appears that the logic is now that anyone who doesn't buy 100% into the latest evil-Jimbo conspiracy is obviously an irrational sycophant. Might I suggest that there's some anti-Jimbo kool-aid being drunk here too?

I was just interested that you, known as an independent thinker, chose to express the argument in terms of good faith which, for me, is one of the most irritating mis-directions on Wikipedia. The feeling your post gave was that you were expressing the problem in the typical Wikipedian talk page way. I imagine a Wikipedian reading your post and simply seeing the AGF and switching off, no more to be considered.

Wikipedian antics get under everybody's skin, but I was especially surprised that you had chosen that form which suggested to me that you've perhaps been reading Wikipedian talk pages for too long.

I don't disagree that it is easy to dismiss Greg's points because of the way he presented them, I simply observe that you chose the language of Wikipedia to express the point.

I've found that assuming good faith, at least until the person has been invited to explain their actions, generally has some traction beyond wikipedia's talk pages. Greg has (perhaps) shown a set of circumstances, which could be construed in a negative way. That doesn't show anything much. Maybe it shows a certain naivety, but nothing much else. It is possible Jimmy is a crook, but this isn't a smoking gun.

[thekohser]

I'm simply saying:

1) that it would be best to say "hey Jimmy, this doesn't look too good can you explain it?", before assuming he's deliberately engineered it.

I would absolutely love to do that, except that Jimbo has ignored every one of my e-mails since about a year ago, and he's "globally banned" me from Wikimedia projects. So, how to ask him to explain it? (Also, if you would have actually read the links I provided, you would have seen that Rob Horning, on April 23, 2006, said "For Jimbo to add this policy out of the blue like this, without any discussion or even what his mindset is on this issue is totally beyond reason. ...I would welcome a reasonable and thoughtful conversation about this issue, but drastic changes like this one are too much, especially if done by one person... even if that person is Jimbo himself. Even a slight longer explaination here in this talk page would have been incredibly useful, to even explain motiviations....")

Take a wild guess, Doc, as to whether Jimbo deigned to participate in that discussion to "explain it".

Two things happened - a) Jimmy (and, presumably others) felt this material unsuitable for a WMF project. b) Jimmy's Wikia took the/similar material and made a success of it. Now - post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

Yes, I believe so. Explain to me why the only period where a decline in Wikia links from Wikipedia occurred was the two-month period (August-September 2006) where I was pointing out Wales' hypocrisy to the Wikipedia community; then after I was removed by Wales from that forum of discussion, Wikia links skyrocketed, all out of proportion to Wikipedia's natural growth rate?

And, even if so, did the result influence the initial decision? In short, was their a "loss" to the charity (removing inappropriate material would not be a loss), and if there was a loss, was it engineered so as to profit a trustee? Where's the beef?

Spoken like a true Wikipediot.

2) as for Kohs. His vendetta - and it is that - is motivated by his frustrated (even if legitimate) attempt to gain through Wikipedia. Thus he's hardly the best judge of Jimmy's good or bad motives. Neither, perhaps, are those here who constantly believe anything bad or conspiratorial about Jimmy.

So, you're an expert at recognizing a conflict of interest to explain motivation, if it surrounds me; but you are mind-numbingly blind if the same conflict of interest to explain motivation surrounds Jimmy Wales. Got it, Doc.

P.S. Thank you to Jon, Milton, and Dogbiscuit and others for seeing the correct viewpoint on all of this.

This post has been edited by thekohser: