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.