GregoryKohs
10 November 2010 1:22AM

Jemima, you've fallen for the Big Liar again, haven't you?

Jimbo Wales couldn't have "started Wikipedia in 1996", because he didn't have anyone spoon-feed him the idea, like Dr. Larry Sanger did in January 2001. Sanger came to Wales with the request to install wiki software on the Bomis server, to open a crowdsourced encyclopedia feeder. Sanger named the new project "Wikipedia". Sanger issued the first public call for participation. And Sanger toiled for the first year as the project's "editor in chief", if one could say that, fashioning many of the key rules and guidelines that still govern Wikipedia. Wales spent about 60 minutes installing the wiki freeware, and he signed Sanger's Bomis paycheck. To call Wales even a co-founder of Wikipedia is generous. To call him "founder" is simply outlandish and should be retracted. Even Wikipedia's article about the origin of Wikipedia makes it clear that Wales is merely a co-founder who later dreamt that he founded it alone.

About the same could be said of Wales' Wikia project. That, too, was co-founded along with Angela Beesley, because Jimmy really wouldn't have known the first thing about getting a new wiki farm started on his lonesome.

It appears that the only truthful thing you published was "Wikia, the for-profit wing of Wikipedia", but then you self-reverted that on the basis of one cry-baby secretary of Wikimedia UK. Why should it surprise me that you'd modify your article so that it pleases whichever Wikimedia crony who might complain?

If you and your readers are interested in learning about the REAL Wikia that Jimmy Wales desperately hopes you don't learn about, I would suggest this site.

This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted.

Jemima, I am afraid that there are a few untruths in this article.

Jimbo Wales couldn't have "started Wikipedia in 1996", because he didn't have anyone spoon-feed him the idea, like Dr. Larry Sanger did in January 2001. Sanger came to Wales with a request to install wiki software on the Bomis server, to open a crowdsourced encyclopedia feeder. Sanger named the new project "Wikipedia". Sanger issued the first public call for participation. And Sanger toiled for the first year as the project's "editor in chief", if one could say that, fashioning many of the key rules and guidelines that still govern Wikipedia. Wales spent about 60 minutes installing the wiki freeware, and he signed Sanger's Bomis paycheck. To call Wales even a co-founder of Wikipedia is generous. To call him "founder" is simply outlandish and should be retracted. Even Wikipedia's article about the origin of Wikipedia makes it clear that Wales is merely a co-founder who later dreamt that he founded it alone.

About the same could be said of Wales' Wikia project. That, too, was co-founded along with Angela Beesley. I think Jimmy would be the first to tell you that he wouldn't have known the first thing about getting a new wiki farm started on his lonesome, as wiki software and patches and upgrades had advanced far beyond his ken.

It appears that one truthful thing you published was "Wikia, the for-profit wing of Wikipedia", but then you self-reverted that on the basis of one commenter making a complaint about that correct interpretation, but "MikePeel" is the secretary of Wikimedia UK. Why should it surprise us that you'd modify your article so that it pleases whichever Wikimedia affiliate who might complain about an uncomfortable but accurate characterization?

If you and your readers are interested in learning about the REAL Wikia that Jimmy Wales desperately hopes you don't learn about, I would suggest this site. Maybe after reading that, someone could explain to us here on The Guardian why external links from Wikipedia that point to Wikia.com now number over 24,000, and why that represents a growth rate 98% greater than the rate of growth of Wikipedia articles themselves?

The criticism of Wikia's revenue model mentioned by Jimmy Wales is a red herring. While it is a genuine criticism, it is also an old one that dates back to Wikia's beginnings in 2004. In recent times, other criticisms have arisen, mainly surrounding new skins and domain mergers imposed by Wikia upon the various "communities" of Wikia without their consent. This has led to the defection of several wikis, including the major "communities" of WoWWiki (now WoWpedia), Halopedia, WikiSimpsons and Grand Theft Wiki, to other hosting sites. Even Wikia's entry in Wikipedia acknowledges this.

No matter that the very features that Wales touts as making Wikia "stickier" have in fact led to the exodus of major wikis from Wikia. Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!