The Spanish Fork: Wikipedia's ad-fuelled mutiny
Wired.co.uk
As Wikipedia reaches its 10th birthday, Wired.co.uk reflects on a period of time in its early years when Wikipedia was considering taking ...
View the article
QUOTE
Today, Wikipedia has become a huge, hierarchical social network, behind an unreliable knowledge repository. That's what it is, merely an unreliable repository. As the project continues to grow, so does Wales' celebrity status, but the same cannot be said about the quality of the project, which is being left behind. Wikipedia has reduced the minimal requirements of knowledge to below average in both quality and reliability.
Very good article, definitely worth reading to understand the effect of the Enciclopedia Libre fork on Jimmy Wales and the genesis of the Foundation, and especially why Jimmy is so adamantly resistant to advertising on Wikipedia even when it could obviously make him extremely wealthy.
Jimbo's lies run new and ever more vigorous!
Nice comments from Seth Finkelstein that (once again) demonstrate Wales to be a Class A liar.
QUOTE
Wired.co.uk put Enyedy's interview to Jimmy Wales. His response was this:
Sanger was absolutely adamant that Wikipedia must have ads, and it was my refusal to do so that led to Wikipedia being as it is today. The Spanish fork did not provoke any changes of any kind. We stayed the course. I didn't want to have advertising, and I found ways to avoid it -- the Spanish fork was an important event in the history of Wikipedia, but not in the sense of "provoking change".
Sanger was absolutely adamant that Wikipedia must have ads, and it was my refusal to do so that led to Wikipedia being as it is today. The Spanish fork did not provoke any changes of any kind. We stayed the course. I didn't want to have advertising, and I found ways to avoid it -- the Spanish fork was an important event in the history of Wikipedia, but not in the sense of "provoking change".
Nice comments from Seth Finkelstein that (once again) demonstrate Wales to be a Class A liar.
My take on this should also be instructive: http://larrysanger.org/2011/01/jimmy-wales-on-advertisement/
My previous understanding was that Jimbo didn't start claiming to have been "always" opposed to advertising until after 2005, by which time there had already been many dozens, if not hundreds, of angry emails and talk page messages from the Frei Kultur Kinder regarding his previous suggestions re ads on Wikipedia. In this instance, it would appear that his lies are an attempt to avoid conflict, rather than to cover up or minimize misdeeds, as is more usually the case.
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 20th January 2011, 3:26pm) 
My previous understanding was that Jimbo didn't start claiming to have been "always" opposed to advertising until after 2005, by which time there had already been many dozens, if not hundreds, of angry emails and talk page messages from the Frei Kultur Kinder regarding his previous suggestions re ads on Wikipedia. In this instance, it would appear that his lies are an attempt to avoid conflict, rather than to cover up or minimize misdeeds, as is more usually the case.
Hmm, well, his lies are also an attempt to avoid conflict, but they also burnish his virtuous image among those whom he wants to impress.
Has he ever actually stated that he was "always" opposed to ads on Wikipedia? Got a quotation? If so, it would be fun to put that quotation together with the ones Seth Finkelstein and I recently unearthed.
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Fri 21st January 2011, 3:27pm)
QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 20th January 2011, 3:26pm)
My previous understanding was that Jimbo didn't start claiming to have been "always" opposed to advertising until after 2005, by which time there had already been many dozens, if not hundreds, of angry emails and talk page messages from the Frei Kultur Kinder regarding his previous suggestions re ads on Wikipedia. In this instance, it would appear that his lies are an attempt to avoid conflict, rather than to cover up or minimize misdeeds, as is more usually the case.
Hmm, well, his lies are also an attempt to avoid conflict, but they also burnish his virtuous image among those whom he wants to impress.
Has he ever actually stated that he was "always" opposed to ads on Wikipedia? Got a quotation? If so, it would be fun to put that quotation together with the ones Seth Finkelstein and I recently unearthed.
Well, in October 2006, he said this on his own blog:
QUOTE
My position on ads in Wikipedia was and is the same as it has ever been. The decision needs to come from the community, and not from me. I am personally opposed to advertising in Wikipedia, but we need to make the decision to turn down ads in a responsible and serious manner.
In a video interview with All Things Digital last March he said this in response to the question of whether he had ever considered accepting select ads from major advertisers (@ 2:28):
QUOTE
Well, we've discussed it, but we're always opposed to it.
. . . but then he immediately concedes (@ 3:02) "it's always a possibility" in the future.In a video interview for TIME magazine just days ago, he said (@ 2:51):
QUOTE
Well, we've always said, uh, that we're opposed to having advertising in Wikipedia, but we've never said, "absolutely not; absolutely never", because we will do what it takes to keep Wikipedia alive.
Accordingly, it appears to me that Jimbo's post-2005 position is that he was "always" personally opposed to ads on Wikipedia, but he is also maintaining a fallback position that that may need to be reconsidered if future changes to the funding situation warrant it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.