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 ...
QUOTE
((jwales)) Hi, I have a question. 
((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
((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.
((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.
((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?
((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
((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.
((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.
((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?
