Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after this came to light, in which you described yourself as "co-founder" in 2002.

I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our "versions"--well, my version and your fanciful inventions--about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start--despite it being my own baby, really--and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out.

In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org--and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name "Wikipedian" and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia--what it is about, why we are here, and so forth--for example, in Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org like this one and this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians.

These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was "leaderless" (see the quotations linked from this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself "Chief Instigator" and "Chief Organizer" and the like (not editor).

I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was "fired." In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you "didn't want to pay him any more." You know--and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people--that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis' original 4-5 employees, because of the tech market bust, when Bomis suddenly lost a million-dollar ad deal. Tim Shell told me I was the last person to be laid off. He told me--the day I arrived back from my honeymoon, as I recall--that I should probably start looking for new work, because of the market. I was made to believe, and always did until a few years ago when you started implying otherwise, that I had been laid off just like all the other Bomis employees.

In those first three years, Wikipedia did three press releases, in which we are both given credit as founders of the project. I drafted the first press release in January 2002; you read and approved it before posting it on the wires. Moreover, you must have read the many early news articles that called us both founders. You could have complained then--when you were CEO of the company that paid my paycheck. But you didn't. In fact, you called yourself "co-founder" from time to time. Evidence of this has surfaced in the form of this post to xodp in which you begin, "Hello, let me introduce myself. I'm Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia, the open content encyclopedias." While your company supplied the funding and you supplied some guidance, I supplied the main leadership of the early project. This is why Wikipedia's second press release also called me "founder," in 2003--just after I broke permanently with you and the Wikipedia community--and the Wikimedia Foundation's first press release described me the same way, in early 2004.

I had nothing to do with the second and third press releases, and, as Bomis CEO and Wikimedia Chair, you approved all three. But now read what you told Hot Press recently. The interviewer asked: "Sanger said that proof of his being co-founder is on the initial press releases. Are you saying that he basically just put himself down as co-founder on these press releases?" You answered "Yes." How could I "put myself down as co-founder" in 2003 and 2004, when I wasn't even part of the organization? This is an attempt to buff your reputation while making me look like a liar--but your simple "Yes" answer can be refuted with a few URLs; you were a contact on all three press releases.

Beginning in 2004, you began leaving me out of the story of Wikipedia's origin. You began implying, to reporters, that you had done a lot of the sort of work that, in fact, you hired me to do. You have even implied that I was opposed to various ideas that were crucial to Wikipedia's popular success--when those were, for all intents and purposes, my own ideas. A good example is Daniel Pink's article for Wired Magazine--in which you implied that I had little or nothing to do with Wikipedia.

You still do this. You told the Hot Press interviewer, "Larry was never comfortable with the open-editing model of Wikipedia and he very early on wanted to start locking things down and giving certain people special authority--you know, recruit experts to supervise certain areas of the encyclopaedia and things like that." This is a lie. I was perfectly comfortable with the "open-editing model of Wikipedia." After all, that was my idea. I did not want to "start locking things down"----or to "recruit experts to supervise certain areas of the encyclopaedia." I challenge anyone to find any evidence in the archive that I did any such thing. For my early attitude toward expert involvement, see this column, written a year after the project started. Besides, your claim doesn't make sense. Even after a year, I was hoping that a revitalized Nupedia would work in tandem with Wikipedia as its vetting service. Though you increasingly disliked Nupedia as Wikipedia's star rose, it was always my assumption that you felt the same way about at least the potential of the two projects working together.

It was one thing, in 2004, to leave me out of the story of Wikipedia. It was another to assert in 2005, (1) for the very first time, that somebody else had the idea for the project, contrary to what had been on the books since 2001, or (2) that I am not co-founder of the project. But in both cases, people scanning the Wikipedia-L mailing list archives found old mails in which you contradicted yourself. One embarrassing mail has you giving me credit--as, of course, I always had been given credit--for the idea of Wikipedia, and another embarrassing mail surfaced just a few days ago in which you called yourself "co-founder" of Wikipedia.

I find your behavior since 2004 transparently self-serving, considering that this rewriting of history began in 2004, just as Wikia.com was getting started, and you started promoting your reputation as the brains behind Wikipedia. There is a long "paper trail" establishing virtually all of my claims about Wikipedia, and which refute your various attempts to rewrite history.

I have not publicly confronted you about this before, to this extent. Public controversies are emotionally wrenching and time-consuming. I know I might be (verbally) attacked more viciously than ever by your fans and Wikipedia's. (To them, I just point out that Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales.) I have mainly limited myself to answering reporters' questions--keeping my more harshly-worded statements off the record--and to this page on my personal site. Occasionally I couldn't help objecting to some particularly outrageous claim, but I never went all out.

I thought that the evidence against your claims about me would shame you into changing your behavior. But, five years since you started misrepresenting my role in the founding of Wikipedia, you're still at it.

I have been content to watch you reap the rewards of the project I started for you, largely without comment. You (with Tim Shell and Michael Davis, the Bomis partners) did, after all, sponsor the project. After leaving Wikipedia, I went back to academia and, after that, worked for a succession of nonprofit projects--these days, Citizendium.org and now also WatchKnow.org. I have not tried to cash in on my own reputation. I have been approached by a number of venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, and publishers and have always told them that I have my own plans. If I had wanted to cash in myself, I wouldn't have moved away from Silicon Valley back to Ohio, as I did, in order to lower my costs in supporting the non-profit projects which I've made my life's work.

The Hot Press interview is the straw that broke this camel's back. I resent being the victim of another person's self-serving lies. Besides, I don't want to set a poor example in my failure to defend myself.

Please don't say I'm making mountains out of molehills. When you go out of your way to edit Wikipedia articles to remove the fact that I am a co-founder, or ask others to do so, I don't call that correcting "very simple errors," as you told Hot Press. What angers me is not any one error, but the accumulated weight of your lies about me--I've mentioned only a few of them here.

Finally, you might protest that you have said, several times, that I am not credited enough. For example, you told Hot Press:

I feel that Larry's work is often under-appreciated. He really did a lot in the first year to think through editorial policy. ... I would actually love to have it on the record that I said: I think Larry's work should be more appreciated. He's a really brilliant guy.

This sounds like a fine sentiment. But how could it be sincere? What better way to ensure that I am "under-appreciated" than to contradict your own first three press releases and tell the Boston Globe, just two years later, that it's "preposterous" that I am called co-founder?

I have two further requests, not of you, but of those who deal with you: the Wikimedia Foundation and reporters.

First, I ask the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to reiterate the Foundation's original position (as expressed in its first press release) that we are both, in fact, founders of Wikipedia. (I note that the author of the recent history of Wikipedia, Andrew "fuzheado" Lih, was among the authors and contacts for this press release.) If the Foundation is unwilling, I request an explanation why its corporate view has changed. Is it simply because Jimmy Wales has made his wishes known and you enforce them?

Second, I request any reporter who interviews you about the early history of Wikipedia and Nupedia to interview me as well, so I can correct anything misleading. They should know that there are many details in my 2005 memoir of Nupedia and Wikipedia, and my story has never varied. I would also appreciate it if a reporter were to inquire about my request, above, to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

--Larry Sanger (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC) (sanger@citizendium.org)

Jimbo, under established precedent of users being able to re-add edits from banned users if they are willing to take responsibility for said edit, may I please ask the following question, one which has been added and removed from here countless times, causing more "drama" than the actual question.

Jimbo, could you please explain why in August 2002, you introduced yourself as "co-founder" of Wikipedia; but in May 2007, you declared yourself the "sole founder" of Wikipedia?

Many thanks GTD 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a typo.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to go with that answer, Jimmy? It doesn't sound very credible.

No, it wasn't a typo. I recall you referring to yourself as "co-founder" a number times. I remember being distinctly annoyed when, in 2004, you started referring to yourself as the (singular) founder of Wikipedia. If we were to scour other archives from late 2001, 2002, and 2003, I'm sure we would find other instances--to say nothing of the first three official press releases. --Larry Sanger (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a tiny mind" - Ralph Waldo Emerson. Rodhullandemu 12:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a very good description of the whole co-founder/founder issue at Larry Sanger#Origins of Wikipedia with lots of sources. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm becoming increasingly depressed by Andrew Lih's role in Wikipedia.

On his radio show, Wikipedia Weekly, Lih is a Wikiapologist, but not so stupid as to have swallowed the whole jug of Jimbo Juice.

Now he's pushing his book, his name is popping up all over the place to justify Wikipedia, usually accompanied by a lot of those same old myths about Wikipedia which don't stand up to scrutiny, but which won't go away.

By "old myths about Wikipedia", do you mean (for lack of better terminology) "pro-Wales version", "pro-Sanger version" or "pro-Wiki is the best thing ever version"?

Preempted Doc G.

Although I generally agree that Wales is not the master/demon he is sometimes imagined to be here, I think it's good that Larry Sanger might get some closure on this issue. It's ashamed that the person who exclaimed "Let's make a Wiki!" has been cast as some sort of early opponent to Wikipedia.

I wish that Larry Sanger's vision had prevailed. His observations in late 2004 about Wikipedia's anti-elitism were spot-on. He was way ahead of the curve.

Jimbo removes Sanger's post

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=282581289

With the edit summary:

"(Decline to participate, sorry)"

An arbcom member criticising Wales? I guess if the apologists for the Big Powerful Jimbo are correct, they'll expect your head on a pole soon.

Whoever the socks belong to, please quit it. Use your real account if you must repost.

Please put your wiki-advice on the wiki, not here. Reposting that, at least once, on "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not particularly productive, but surely is fair play.

I don't know if I've ever seen a more cowardly, sniveling admission of being caught in a lie.

Jimbo's response is one perhaps appropriate for someone with the maturity of character of a 6-year-old.

Shameful. Entirely shameful.

...I request any reporter who interviews you about the early history of Wikipedia and Nupedia to interview me as well, so I can correct anything misleading. They should know that there are many details in my 2005 memoir of Nupedia and Wikipedia, and my story has never varied. I would also appreciate it if a reporter were to inquire about my request, above, to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Ho Hum, yet another "Monster Bites Co-Frankenstein" story

Ja Ja

Whoever the socks belong to, please quit it. Use your real account if you must repost.

Concur.

Concur too. If Jimbo wants to defend his case with an explanation of how he sees his and Larry's relative positions, fair enough, but this "if we can't use my rules I'm taking my ball home" sulking is ridiculous, as are the tag team of Defenders Of The Wiki squabbling over it. (Thanks to Majorly for pointing out this Great Moment In The History Of Wikipedia.)

Concur too. If Jimbo wants to defend his case with an explanation of how he sees his and Larry's relative positions, fair enough, but this "if we can't use my rules I'm taking my ball home" sulking is ridiculous, as are the tag team of Defenders Of The Wiki squabbling over it. (Thanks to Majorly for pointing out this Great Moment In The History Of Wikipedia.)

I can see why Larry Sanger would be eager to counter what he sees (on the face of it, with justification) as a campaign to marginalize him and deny him due credit. I don't begrudge him using any venue he can to raise the issue.

But I don't think it behooves Wikipedia Reviewers to revel in it like this. Trying to make Jimmy Wales look bad — even if he makes it really easy — does not amount to a serious critique of Wikipedia. And you can go on all you want about how a project whose figurehead has no integrity is going to have that same lack of integrity perpetuated throughout, but at the end of the day this is a bunch of people who don't like Jimmy Wales and are prepared to make hay out of insignificant shit in order to make him look like a tool (or, depending on your preferences, "to expose him as the tool he is").

Doc glasgow had it right in another thread, when he said that the pro-Wikipedia Jimbo cultists and the "Blame Jimbo for everything" types are two sides of the same coin.* I'm not saying lay off Jimbo on this issue because he doesn't deserve this, because this is a dispute that he has at least perpetuated and at most created; I'm saying lay off Jimbo on this issue because it's a sideshow to the stuff that actually matters.

*I'm pretty sure Doc put it more eloquently than that.

I can see why Larry Sanger would be eager to counter what he sees (on the face of it, with justification) as a campaign to marginalize him and deny him due credit. I don't begrudge him using any venue he can to raise the issue.

But I don't think it behooves Wikipedia Reviewers to revel in it like this. Trying to make Jimmy Wales look bad - even if he makes it really easy - does not amount to a serious critique of Wikipedia. And you can go on all you want about how a project whose figurehead has no integrity is going to have that same lack of integrity perpetuated throughout, but at the end of the day this is a bunch of people who don't like Jimmy Wales and are prepared to make hay out of insignificant shit in order to make him look like a tool (or, depending on your preferences, "to expose him as the tool he is").

Doc glasgow had it right in another thread, when he said that the pro-Wikipedia Jimbo cultists and the "Blame Jimbo for everything" types are two sides of the same coin.* I'm not saying lay off Jimbo on this issue because he doesn't deserve this, because this is a dispute that he has at least perpetuated and at most created; I'm saying lay off Jimbo on this issue because it's a sideshow to the stuff that actually matters.

*I'm pretty sure Doc put it more eloquently than that.

I think you are wrong about this.

There is something about Cap'n Wales' character that pervades the entire Wikipedia Enterprise, and pointing out the outcrappings, er, outcroppings of those bad seeds is fundamental to recognizing the fruits of Wikipedia.

His whole manner of conduct betrays the attitude — "It's My Wiki and, goshdarnit, it's going to promote My POV whenever and wherever I say so."

Jon Awbrey

(Thanks to Majorly for pointing out this Great Moment In The History Of Wikipedia.)

It pains me to say this, but Jon is right. Whether you think Wikipedia's the greatest invention since the wheel or a sinister defamation machine (there are probably people whose opinions are somewhere in between, but they don't seem to post here), having its two most prominent members flinging shit at each other like a pair of caged gibbons does nobody any credit.

Concur too. If Jimbo wants to defend his case with an explanation of how he sees his and Larry's relative positions, fair enough, but this "if we can't use my rules I'm taking my ball home" sulking is ridiculous, as are the tag team of Defenders Of The Wiki squabbling over it. (Thanks to Majorly for pointing out this Great Moment In The History Of Wikipedia.)

I thought that was just extraordinary.

His whole manner of conduct betrays the attitude — "It's My Wiki and, goshdarnit, it's going to promote My POV whenever and wherever I say so."

It pains me to say this, but Jon is right. Whether you think Wikipedia's the greatest invention since the wheel or a sinister defamation machine (there are probably people whose opinions are somewhere in between, but they don't seem to post here), having its two most prominent members flinging shit at each other like a pair of caged gibbons does nobody any credit.

We're looking at the limits of Web 2.0, not the character flaws of one man (no matter how large you imagine them).

Some of Wikipedia's problems could be traced to Wales' leadership early on, but he no longer enjoys God-King status, nor has his recent activity been particularly bad. In fact, I think he's been a net positive for some time. Wikipedia's problems transcend Wales, and probably Wikipedia itself. We're looking at the limits of Web 2.0, not the character flaws of one man (no matter how large you imagine them).

Wikipedia's problems transcend Wales, and probably Wikipedia itself. We're looking at the limits of Web 2.0, not the character flaws of one man (no matter how large you imagine them).

But I don't think it behooves Wikipedia Reviewers to revel in it like this. Trying to make Jimmy Wales look bad - even if he makes it really easy - does not amount to a serious critique of Wikipedia. And you can go on all you want about how a project whose figurehead has no integrity is going to have that same lack of integrity perpetuated throughout, but at the end of the day this is a bunch of people who don't like Jimmy Wales and are prepared to make hay out of insignificant shit in order to make him look like a tool (or, depending on your preferences, "to expose him as the tool he is").

Bleh. WP has a long way to go before its badness is due solely to the limitations of "Web 2.0" and not stupid management-choices that the site made a long time ago, and now cannot seem to get rid of.

Absolutely. And if you want to blame Jimbo, feel free to blame him for setting up a really lousy foundation for the project to grow on (and by "a really lousy foundation", I mean [[WP:CONSENSUS]]). But largely semantic disputes about what it means to be a founder are largely unrelated to that, and appear calculated primarily to embarrass out of spite.

But largely semantic disputes about what it means to be a founder are largely unrelated to that, and appear calculated primarily to embarrass out of spite.

But largely semantic disputes about what it means to be a founder are largely unrelated to that, and appear calculated primarily to embarrass out of spite.