Jimbo Fired Up - Wikitruth

Jimbo Fired Up

From Wikitruth

Jump to: navigation, search

It was a special day in Jimbo-land... just 24 hours after his previous visit, Jimbo stopped by, and was greeted by his minions with love:

[12:46pm] *** jwales (n=jwales@wikipedia/Jimbo-Wales) has joined #wikipedia-en-admins
         ((Dragonfly6-7)) hey, Jimbo
         ((jwales)) hi
         * NotACat makes jwales a god-like mug of hot chocolate
         ((Dragonfly6-7)) ALL HAIL THE MUG OF HOT CHOCOLATE

But Jimbo wasn't in the mood and didn't want the hot chocolate graciously offered to his appearance. Whereas the previous day he was somewhat miffed, today he was truly and honestly beside himself with anger.

((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)) This sentence very strongly takes sides in a highly POV way
((jwales)) in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger
((jwales)) I really wish someone could help me with this.
((Dragonfly6-7)) "Sanger is widely considered the honorary co-founder of Wikipedia"
((Dragonfly6-7)) how's that?
((jwales)) I can't {{sofixit}} without creating a media firestorm
((jwales)) He is NOT widely consdered "honorary co-founder" though
((Dragonfly6-7)) you'd be surprised by how widely he is
((jwales)) certainly not "honorary" that term has never been used

When his friends tried to ask for a citation of Jimbo's viewpoint, he happily referenced.. his own Wikipedia User page.

((Dragonfly6-7)) "However, in about 2004, Wales began to re-emphasize Sanger's role
                 as an employee under Wales's direction"
((jwales)) "Sanger controversially calls himself 'co-founder' of Wikipedia" is more accurate.
((ocee)) you would need to cite the "controversially" point, i'd think
((jwales)) It is incredibly important to know that Sanger never called himself co-founder until
           after he left my employment
((jwales)) ocee: of course it is controversial... see my bio for example :)

Try as they might, his minions couldn't find a way to make the glass shoe fit on Jimbo's foot. And then he really let loose.

((Dragonfly6-7)) "Sanger has described himself as 'co-founder' of Wikipedia; however, in about 2004,
                 Wales began to emphasize that Sanger's role was that of an employee under Wales's
                 direction."
((Dragonfly6-7)) there.
((Dragonfly6-7)) how's that?
((jwales)) Basically the situation is that trolls have allowed Wikipedia to be used in spreading
           and maintaining this false story
((Dragonfly6-7)) jwales, what do you think of my version?
((jwales)) Dragonfly, the bit I am unhappy about is to uncontroversially state, as fact,
           that "Sanger is considered..:"
((jwales)) He is NOT so considered
((Dragonfly6-7)) Okay,.
((jwales)) he puts it rather successfully in his PR but until he did so, he was NOT so-considered
((Dragonfly6-7)) jwales - so how about "Sanger has described himself as" ?
((jwales)) I flatlly deny quite strongly that it is coherent to say so.
((jwales)) There are published reports in which I have said that it is "preposterous" 
           to think of him as co.founder
((jwales)) And so it is quite important that Wikipedia refrain from EVER stating it as if it
           is an uncontroversial fact

...Why is it so important, Jimbo? Well, no mind. Jimbo was on a roll.

((jwales)) His title was "editor in chief"
((jwales)) he made up the "co-founder" bit after I fired him
((ocee)) cannot organisations sue a former employer for publicly mis-stating his/her role in
         the organisation
((jwales)) ocee, yes, someone else should do it, not me
((Dragonfly6-7)) the thing is, there're references
((Dragonfly6-7)) NY Times, etc
((jwales)) There are many more references referrring to me as founder
((Dragonfly6-7)) Wikipedia says "Created by: Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger"
((jwales)) there is no question that it cannot be stated as a simple fact
((jwales)) that's what NPOV means
((jwales)) whenever there is a legitimate controversy, wikipedia should not take sides
((jwales)) that should say "Created by: thousands of volunteers"

NotACat (Phil Boswell) pointed out the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia said it was co-created by Sanger and Wales. Jimbo continued to shout out his threats:

((NotACat)) jwales: months and months...I'm back into January 2006 and it's still there
((jwales)) NotACat: doesn't surprise me
((jwales)) it's still POV at a minimum
((jwales)) and factually demented
((jwales)) I am thinking of asking everyone who was there at the beginning, all the people
           who worked in the office if I can find them
((jwales)) and getting statements from them on this question
((NotACat)) jwales: I gave up when I got to December 2005, at which point it had actually been in the lede
((jwales)) confirmed that NO ONE would have considered Larry the founder or anything like it at that time
((NotACat)) do we have anything to cite Lary calling himself the "co-founder"?
((jwales)) several people have commented to me privately over the years about how neatly Larry
           performed this little sleight of hand
((jwales)) Larry calls himself co-founder all over the place
((jwales)) every chance he gest
((jwales)) gets
((jwales)) that's easy to find sources for
((bastique)) Are there sources for your denying it?
((NotACat)) jwales: how about this:
((NotACat)) ---Sanger claims to be the co-founder of Wikipedia alongside Wales{{fact}};
((NotACat)) however, while describing Sanger's role as important, Wales himself emphasizes his status
            as an employee under Wales' direction.<ref>---
((NotACat)) then someone can replace that {{fact}} with an actual cite
((Alkivar)) jimbo the only way your ever going to shut people up about this is prove wikipedia
            was started on day X ... and show larry's pay stub from that day as en employee I guess
((jwales)) that sounds accurate
((jwales)) Alkivar: no one denies that he was my employee at that time
((jwales)) it is somewhat a matter of semantics, he could be co-founder of wikipedia *and* an employee
((jwales)) it is more a question of: who drove the vision from the beginning
((jwales)) he just worked there
((jwales)) and bitched about the openness of wikipedia from day one, wanting to ban people,
           lock everything down, etc., and I refused
((jwales)) eventually that and his demands that I put advertising on wikipedia led me to fire him

And it wouldn't stop.

((bastique)) I think that is too much information
((bastique)) For the article
((bastique)) We want truth, not disparagement
((jwales)) well, I don't want us to run him down or disparage him
((jwales)) I just want us to stop stating as if it is an uncontroversial fact that he and I are "co-founders"
((jwales)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Universe
((jwales)) we do it all over the place
((jwales)) Will someone help me by cleaning this up all over the site?

Brave hearts stepped forward.

((Eagle_101)) sure jwales
((Eagle_101)) so what am I doing jwales?
((jwales)) but I would say that there are at least 2 dozen places where people have made
           Sanger the "co-founder" uncontroversially
((jwales)) when that is just flat wrong
((Eagle_101)) mmm ok
((bastique)) Eagle_101: You're de co-foundering Larry Sanger
((Eagle_101)) jwales what am I doing here?
((Eagle_101)) I need to remove instances of co-founder?
((jwales)) what are you doing, eagle_101 ?
((Eagle_101)) jwales but I would be glad to help with this...
((jwales)) oh, basically my concern is that Wikipedia ought not to state as if it were an 
           uncontroversial fact that Larry Sanger was the co-founder of wikipedia
((jwales)) not only is it highly controversial, it is false
((jwales)) I do not want us to take my own POV as our approach, of course
((bastique)) Change all instances of "co-founder Larry" to "self-proclaimed co-founder Larry"
((Eagle_101)) ok, but your concern is at least basis to move the offending phrase to the 
              talk page
((jwales)) my own POV is that Larry has been very successful at concocting for himself
            a career out of a self-awarded title that no one who was there at the time
            would have thought sensible at all
((jwales)) but all that I ask is that we not take Larry's POV all over the place
((jwales)) there is a circularity here
((jwales)) I have corrected reporters on this point
((Dragonfly6-7)) "usurper Larry"
((jwales)) and they have said "oh, well, I got that from wikipedia"
((jwales)) but then that just makes one more source which would tend to confirm the lie :(

And the whitewash began.

((Eagle_101)) jwales ok, I can remove all instances... and put to the talk page... 
              lord knows that someone will complain
((Eagle_101)) and I will be as busy as ever... but oh well
((Eagle_101)) jwales I am going to move all these to talk pages as unverified fact
Personal tools