Wales declares Sanger arbiter of consensus on Wikipedia, And other hijinx Options

[Milton Roe]

This is just a restatement of what you've said above. And I'm not sure why I didn't hear this side of the story in 2007, when Wales referred to you as someone "who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him".

This is a juicy quote that needs expanding. Does it mean:

..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him at all".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him more than the crap wage he was making as my employee.".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him as much as I made (and still make)."

At some point, employees, especially poorly paid ones, are bound to notice that their bosses have benefitted a lot from their work, and yet are still paying them badly. Thus, unions and Communism. In our society, they either have to accept that, fight that, or else leave. Sanger left. The world wonders if they gave Jimbo an ultimatum prior to this, or not. However, I think it should be clear that at the time Jimbo was probably making enough money to live on, and Sanger wasn't. Thus, Jimbo could hold out, and Sanger could not. "Ideology" can be a very different thing when your income does not meet your basic needs.

If Sanger made in 2001 what Sue Gardner makes NOW, do you think he would still have quit? Dr. Sanger, what say you? I think it's about $165,000/yr or so.

[anthony]

This is just a restatement of what you've said above. And I'm not sure why I didn't hear this side of the story in 2007, when Wales referred to you as someone "who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him".

This is a juicy quote that needs expanding. Does it mean:

..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him at all".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him more than the crap wage he was making as my employee.".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him as much as I made (and still make)."

I assume this refers to the time after Sanger was laid off and before he "resigned".

As you know, since the beginning of February, I've been working on Wikipedia and Nupedia as a part-time volunteer. I haven't been able to do nearly as much as I wish I could do, but job-hunting and money-making activities necessarily occupy a great deal of my time. Unfortunately, I do not expect to see, within the foreseeable future, any sort of compensation for the time and responsibility I've continued to hold in the projects. Now that I'm unemployed, I can ill afford to spend my free time this way. This is, I'm afraid, by far the most important reason for my resignation.

The world wonders if they gave Jimbo an ultimatum prior to this, or not. However, I think it should be clear that at the time Jimbo was probably making enough money to live on, and Sanger wasn't. Thus, Jimbo could hold out, and Sanger could not. "Ideology" can be a very different thing when your income does not meet your basic needs.

I certainly don't blame Sanger if he tried to get Jimbo to put ads on Wikipedia in order to pay him. But Sanger claims that isn't true.

This post has been edited by anthony: Sun 23rd January 2011, 11:00pm

[Milton Roe]

This is just a restatement of what you've said above. And I'm not sure why I didn't hear this side of the story in 2007, when Wales referred to you as someone "who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him".

This is a juicy quote that needs expanding. Does it mean:

..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him at all".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him more than the crap wage he was making as my employee.".
..who QUIT THE PROJECT because I refused to put ads on it to pay him as much as I made (and still make)."

I assume this refers to the time after Sanger was laid off and before he "resigned".

Yep. Or to the time before he was laid off. They'd stopped paying him at all. What the hell did Jimbo expect-- that he'd keep running the thing he'd invented, as a pure volunteer? That would certainly fit the ethos over there. And it appears that's exactly what happened. Sheesh.

[Milton Roe]

As you know, since the beginning of February, I've been working on Wikipedia and Nupedia as a part-time volunteer. I haven't been able to do nearly as much as I wish I could do, but job-hunting and money-making activities necessarily occupy a great deal of my time. Unfortunately, I do not expect to see, within the foreseeable future, any sort of compensation for the time and responsibility I've continued to hold in the projects. Now that I'm unemployed, I can ill afford to spend my free time this way. This is, I'm afraid, by far the most important reason for my resignation.

The world wonders if they gave Jimbo an ultimatum prior to this, or not. However, I think it should be clear that at the time Jimbo was probably making enough money to live on, and Sanger wasn't. Thus, Jimbo could hold out, and Sanger could not. "Ideology" can be a very different thing when your income does not meet your basic needs.

I certainly don't blame Sanger if he tried to get Jimbo to put ads on Wikipedia in order to pay him. But Sanger claims that isn't true.

Well, given the quote you found above, then what WAS the exact point of contention? Sanger says he quit because he wasn't getting paid. Jimbo says Sanger quit because Jimbo wouldn't put ads on WP to pay him. Does Sanger say he never even suggested this as a means of supporting him? So what DID he suggest-- splitting Jimbo's salary with Jimbo instead?

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall. I can imagine Jimbo saying "Sorry, Larry, there just isn't enough money even to pay you even minimum wage." And Sanger saying "Well, you always seem to find enough money to pay yourself more than minimum wage, Jimbo." And then Jimbo: "Well, Larry, that's because I'm more important than you are..."

Maybe it didn't happen that way. I'm interested in Sanger's version of how it DID happen. Maybe he doesn't remember after a decade. And, I suppose, it's quite possible Jimbo doesn't either. Emails can be eaten by computer disasters, and you know how it is. History is unstable.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, given the quote you found above, then what WAS the exact point of contention? Sanger says he quit because he wasn't getting paid. Jimbo says Sanger quit because Jimbo wouldn't put ads on WP to pay him...

I think a 'poisonous atmosphere' has also been mentioned by Sanger in the past. Jimbo's behavior since adds weight to that idea, even though Jimbo wasn't the public hatchet man at that time.

What I'm wondering is if Wikipedia's meteoric rise was apparent when Sanger left, because that would beg the question of whether Jimbo saw a winner and wanted to claim it for himself, after Sanger created it.

Larry, can you comment about the 'poisonous atmosphere'? Do you think you might have still contributed on occasion otherwise, even without pay? And how clear was Wikipedia's popularity trend when you left?

[EricBarbour]

Larry, can you comment about the 'poisonous atmosphere'? Do you think you might have still contributed on occasion otherwise, even without pay? And how clear was Wikipedia's popularity trend when you left?

I'd like to hear that too. But once again, I think he should write it down and get it published!

This forum can (and probably will) go away someday. But dead trees have a habit of sticking around.

[timbo]

My brain hurts...

We are supposed to care about this, why exactly?

Obviously, at one point the notion that there would have to be advertising was commonly accepted. Horizons broadened. Larry Sanger wanted to get paid. Jimmy Wales ultimately never sold advertising. The two had a falling out.

It seems like they both need a hug or something.

Larry: write a book for the historical record and quit going "boo hoo hoo hoo." It's idiotic.

[Larry Sanger]

Anthony, I belittle you because you and your sophomoric rhetorical tactics deserve belittling. You're obviously not interested in the truth; you're interested in scoring rhetorical points. That game was interesting to me, a little, when I was in my 20s. I have long since outgrown it, which is why I rarely engage in dialogue with the likes of you.

But I'll go ahead and put to rest a few of your more substantive points.

If he was "not opposed", then why didn't he sell them? I don't buy the argument that he was unable to sell them. He may have told you that at the time, but I'd sooner believe he was lying to you at the time (maybe because you were pestering him about it) than that he is lying to us today (a more likely explanation is that you simply misunderstood him at the time).

Indeed, he told me, at the time, that he was unable to sell them. And yes, of course he is lying to us today when he implies that he had been opposed to ads. That is precisely my point. Seth Finkelstein and I have already pointed to the posts from the man himself where he makes it perfectly plain that the plan had been to sell ads. Beyond that, I assure you that he told me he was going to try to sell ads. It is, therefore, a lie to say that he "refused"--on principled grounds, he implied--when it was his intention to sell ads, then I quit after he told me not to expect any money from that source, and then after that he said that running ads wouldn't be necessary.

The main lie is actually very clear. He imputes a principled stand against running ads to himself. He had no such stand at the time.

I don't have time to write a book. Well, that's all I have time to blather on about for now!

[EricBarbour]

I don't have time to write a book. Well, that's all I have time to blather on about for now!

Gosh, you make me sad.

I was hoping you'd say "yes" or "maybe", and scare the crap out of Jimbo and his fanclub.

[A User]

And what if Wikipedia did allow advertising? Surely it would save users the torture of the annual giveathons with Jimbo's cheesy mug on your webpage.

[thekohser]

And what if Wikipedia did allow advertising? Surely it would save users the torture of the annual giveathons with Jimbo's cheesy mug on your webpage.

Yes, but the drawback is that the pristine integrity of the futanari, smotherbox, and Elonka Dunin articles (et al) would be besmirched by the contextual ads on those pages.

[Cla68]

Jimbo removed the thread from his talk page. I don't think I've ever seen him do that before.

[RMHED]

Jimbo removed the thread from his talk page. I don't think I've ever seen him do that before.

SOP for an evasionist.

[Milton Roe]

Jimbo removed the thread from his talk page. I don't think I've ever seen him do that before.

Jimbo, if Larry disagrees with what you say about him in the media, it's expected that he's going to publicly give his side and ask you for an explanation on why you said what you said. If you're unwilling or unable to respond, perhaps you should avoid publicly saying anything negative about Larry, especially when it gives the appearance of you trying to put your own actions, in comparison with his, in a more positive light. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Cla68 gets my vote for Cojones de Oro, for that post alone. Does it count for 2010, or do we have to wait for 2011? If we have to wait, then it's like one of those "released-too-early-for-Oscar-season" films. Too bad.

After you're banned from WP, Cla68, you can line these all up on your mantle, and admire them. After printing them at home, of course.

[Larry Sanger]

Well, given the quote you found above, then what WAS the exact point of contention? Sanger says he quit because he wasn't getting paid. Jimbo says Sanger quit because Jimbo wouldn't put ads on WP to pay him. Does Sanger say he never even suggested this as a means of supporting him? So what DID he suggest-- splitting Jimbo's salary with Jimbo instead?

I'd like to have been a fly on the wall. I can imagine Jimbo saying "Sorry, Larry, there just isn't enough money even to pay you even minimum wage." And Sanger saying "Well, you always seem to find enough money to pay yourself more than minimum wage, Jimbo." And then Jimbo: "Well, Larry, that's because I'm more important than you are..."

Maybe it didn't happen that way. I'm interested in Sanger's version of how it DID happen. Maybe he doesn't remember after a decade. And, I suppose, it's quite possible Jimbo doesn't either. Emails can be eaten by computer disasters, and you know how it is. History is unstable.

I don't recall who suggested what to whom, but what I do know is that it had long been the plan to support me--and others--with ads sold on Wikipedia.com. (It was part of a business. That's why it was called Wikipedia.com, before it became Wikipedia.org.) I also know that Jimmy Wales assured me that he would try to sell ads. I do recall that we had several conversations about this in December 2001 and January 2002.

I was laid off (like the other Bomis employees) because Bomis was bleeding money. They had had a million-dollar deal with go.com (I think it was--or some other portal), and it fell through when the portal collapsed.

A month later, I quit because I needed time to find a job, and I didn't want to devalue my professional labor by working for free. If Jimmy Wales has said that I quit because he wouldn't put ads on Wikipedia to pay me, that would be again, essentially, a lie. It is true that I quit after Bomis stop paying me; and it is true that he did not put ads on Wikipedia (not for lack of trying, he told me); but it is very much false that the reason I quit was that he did not put ads on Wikipedia. This makes it sound as if I were taking a principled stand in favor of ads, and I quit in protest--which is, of course, completely ridiculous. And yet, this is the sort of completely ridiculous thing that Jimmy Wales has been willing to imply, without actually saying, time and time again. The sad thing is that I have to unpack these lies over and over again, as Wales comes up with creative new ways to lie about my involvement in the project.

This is the story I have been telling, well, forever. And the others who were there can back my story up, though they've never been interviewed about such things. It's Jimmy Wales who keeps telling various original, completely novel lies about what happened in the early days. Clearly, he desperately needs people to believe a completely fabricated narrative about what happened, one that gives him credit for my work, and that sets me up as the villain who was defeated.

This post has been edited by Larry Sanger: Wed 26th January 2011, 5:16pm

[gomi]

It's Jimmy Wales who keeps telling various original, completely novel lies about what happened in the early days. Clearly, he desperately needs people to believe a completely fabricated narrative about what happened, one that gives him credit for my work, and that sets me up as the villain who was defeated.

I suspect that Jimbo's deep need is to be seen as a hero, and that he makes the story up as he goes along, to achieve that end. I don't think you're being portrayed as a villain per se, you're just a foil for his delusions of grandeur competence.

[TungstenCarbide]

I don't recall who suggested what to whom, but what I do know is that it had long been the plan to support me--and others--with ads sold on Wikipedia.com. (It was part of a business. That's why it was called Wikipedia.com, before it became Wikipedia.org.) I also know that Jimmy Wales assured me that he would try to sell ads. I do recall that we had several conversations about this in December 2001 and January 2002.

I was laid off (like the other Bomis employees) because Bomis was bleeding money. They had had a million-dollar deal with go.com (I think it was--or some other portal), and it fell through when the portal collapsed.

A month later, I quit because I needed time to find a job, and I didn't want to devalue my professional labor by working for free. If Jimmy Wales has said that I quit because he wouldn't put ads on Wikipedia to pay me, that would be again, essentially, a lie. It is true that I quit after Bomis stop paying me; and it is true that he did not put ads on Wikipedia (not for lack of trying, he told me); but it is very much false that the reason I quit was that he did not put ads on Wikipedia. This makes it sound as if I were taking a principled stand in favor of ads, and I quit in protest--which is, of course, completely ridiculous. And yet, this is the sort of completely ridiculous thing that Jimmy Wales has been willing to imply, without actually saying, time and time again. The sad thing is that I have to unpack these lies over and over again, as Wales comes up with creative new ways to lie about my involvement in the project.

This is the story I have been telling, well, forever. And the others who were there can back my story up, though they've never been interviewed about such things. It's Jimmy Wales who keeps telling various original, completely novel lies about what happened in the early days. Clearly, he desperately needs people to believe a completely fabricated narrative about what happened, one that gives him credit for my work, and that sets me up as the villain who was defeated.

This might be a good time for review;
Jimbo Found Out; webcitation.org , archive.org
Jimbo Fired Up; webcitation.org, archive.org

((jwales)) "eventually that and his demands that I put advertising on wikipedia led me to fire him"

These are from the 'admin' irc channel, which started as a secret invitation only forum where Jimbo could find todie administrators to do his bidding.

Note, in the light of day Jimbo has never said he fired Sanger. But in secret, behind his back, Jimbo says just that, while rallying the troops to go work over Sanger's reputation on the worlds largest reference website.

Larry, you should look into a defamation suit against Jimbo. He keeps running you down at every opportunity. I don't think anyone would deny that when your job was done at Wikipedia you turned the other cheek, moved on down the road and didn't cause trouble. Jimbo on the other hand is acting like a disgruntled former employer, out to get you.

[anthony]

I don't recall who suggested what to whom, but what I do know is that it had long been the plan to support me--and others--with ads sold on Wikipedia.com.

From when was that the plan?

If Jimmy Wales has said that I quit because he wouldn't put ads on Wikipedia to pay me, that would be again, essentially, a lie. It is true that I quit after Bomis stop paying me; and it is true that he did not put ads on Wikipedia (not for lack of trying, he told me); but it is very much false that the reason I quit was that he did not put ads on Wikipedia. This makes it sound as if I were taking a principled stand in favor of ads, and I quit in protest--which is, of course, completely ridiculous. And yet, this is the sort of completely ridiculous thing that Jimmy Wales has been willing to imply, without actually saying, time and time again.

The fact that it's completely ridiculous should be be a good indicator that it was *not* something that was implied.

In any case, the facts are that you wanted Wales to put ads on Wikipedia to pay you (you say yourself that this "would be great"), Wales did not do so, and you then "quit".

Yes, it's completely ridiculous to believe that the reason you quit was because you wanted the ads, rather than that you wanted the money. But it's also completely honest to say that you quit because Wales did not put ads on Wikipedia to pay you. The implication of that statement is that you wanted Wales to put ads on Wikipedia in order to pay you (not because you are taking a principled stand in favor of ads), that he didn't, and that you then quit. This is exactly what happened.

---

More complete timeline:

January 2000: Wales invites Sanger to work with him on his free encyclopedia project.
February 2000: Sanger arrives in San Diego.
June 2000: Sanger gets his PHD, and a raise.
January 2, 2001: The conversation at the taco stand
December 2001: Larry Sanger gets married (to Rita), and moves to Colorado.
January 2002: Sanger is placed on half-time pay [6]
February 1, 2002: Sanger is no longer a Bomis employee [6]
February 12, 2002: Sanger announces "Bomis might well start selling ads on Wikipedia sometime within the next few months, and revenue from those ads might make it possible for me to come back to my old job. That would be great." [6]
February 26, 2002: Enciclopedia Libre is created
March 1, 2002: Sanger "resigns".
August 2002: Wales announces "that he would never run commercial advertisements on Wikipedia" [7]
August 2002: wikipedia.com changes to wikipedia.org [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_timeline]

To anyone, but especially Dr. Sanger: Please let me know if there are any errors in the above timeline, and if there are any relevant additions. Just the facts, no interpretations please.

This post has been edited by anthony: Wed 26th January 2011, 7:09pm

[anthony]

Note, in the light of day Jimbo has never said he fired Sanger.

Sanger stopped receiving a paycheck, and it just worked itself out naturally.

Larry, you should look into a defamation suit against Jimbo.

Now that would be fun to watch.

[Milton Roe]

I don't recall who suggested what to whom, but what I do know is that it had long been the plan to support me--and others--with ads sold on Wikipedia.com. (It was part of a business. That's why it was called Wikipedia.com, before it became Wikipedia.org.) I also know that Jimmy Wales assured me that he would try to sell ads. I do recall that we had several conversations about this in December 2001 and January 2002.

I was laid off (like the other Bomis employees) because Bomis was bleeding money. They had had a million-dollar deal with go.com (I think it was--or some other portal), and it fell through when the portal collapsed.

A month later, I quit because I needed time to find a job, and I didn't want to devalue my professional labor by working for free.

The Late-2001 to Late-2004 Three Year Money Gap

But somehow Jimbo himself managed to survive those dry times, without having to quit and work for somebody else. One suspects any money Bomis was making, went to him? Did he keep paying himself long after "laying off all the employees," in late 2001, even while Bomis was running in the red (wouldn't be the first time in the history of business that's happened).

So what's the story of Jimbo's money "bridge" between early late 2001 and late 2004 when he started making early-investor money from WikiCities (later Wikia)? Wikicities was started as a hosting cite for Wikis-- a wikifarm aimed at making money from other people's wiki-projects. Had Jimbo wished to be fair, he would have re-hired Sanger then, right? Since "Wikia" looks a lot like Sanger's "Wikify it!" idea, now in final money-making form.

In short, it looks as though Jimbo tried, but could not, sell ads on WP, but three years later managed to attract capital to, and incorporate another for-profit company and sell ads on THAT. On the original Sanger-WP model. Which itself was kept afloat by volunteer labor, until it was turned into a nonprofit in 2003 and started to look for "donations."

WMF comes along in mid-2003, and we know from history that it is paid Jimbo "expense money" from the very beginning, to bring in "donors". And if they didn't want to "donate" to WMF, perhaps they'd like to "invest" in Wikia. At one point in 2006 (after the Wikia name became official), after having his expense credit card taken way by Duvard at WMF, Jimbo presented the SAME dinner expense bill (with the famous $600 wine bill) to Wikia, as an investor relations expense to THEM. Which resulted in his partner Michael Davis having Jimbo fired as Wikia CEO, and bringing in Gil Penchina to replace him.

And we can see how badly he needed money at this point. Bomis ran out of money for its employees in late 2001, a victim of dot.com disaster, and it hobbled along until 2005-6 and then quietly disappeared. So what happened to it? Was it in debt and did it go though a chapter 7 reorganization? Or did it merely declare part of itself a non-profit as WMF, and continue to siphon money from WMF as expense fees? And more to the point, who paid for the servers from mid 2003 when WMF was started as a nonprofit, and late 2004, when WikiCities (later Wikia) was incorporated? Bomis? Those tax returns would be of interest. The first WMF tax returns should be public since it's a 501-c-3, and should be showing some severe strain, as WikiCities yet didn't exist, and Bomis ostensibly wasn't supposed to be making ANY money.

In the ultimate story of Jimbo's life, his finances for years 2002-4 will be one of the fun parts, even better than Marsden's clothing sale.