Internet Evolution today spoke with Larry Sanger, the former editor in chief of Wikipedia, who claims he had his co-founder status stripped of him by Jimmy Wales.
Our call to Sanger was prompted by an outburst by Jason Calacanis on IE Radio yesterday: "There's a big misconception that Jimmy Wales is a huge genius," said Calacanis. "He doesn't know what the [expletive deleted] he's doing. He's a fraud."
Sanger says he was hired in 2000 as editor in chief of Nupedia, an English-language encyclopedia written by experts -- and owned by Bomis Inc., a Web portal company, co-founded by Wales. The site was organized on the model of the open directory project (ODP). After a few months, says Sanger, he and Wales found they weren't getting many contributions, and Sanger was asked to find a system for creating another content stream.
Wales "wanted something that would require minimal programming, because he didn't want to spend any more money on the project," Sanger told Internet Evolution today. "So basically I made the proposal for what became Wikipedia."
According to Sanger, his involvement with Wikipedia didn't last; he was laid off from his paid position in 2002 after the market for Internet advertising collapsed, and he completely separated himself from the project shortly thereafter.
"I thought that the project would never have the amount of credibility it could have if it were not somehow more open and welcoming to experts," he stated as one reason for distancing himself. "The other problem was the community had essentially been taken over by trolls to a great extent. That was a real problem, and Jimmy Wales absolutely refused to do anything about it."
Sanger says Wales has changed the organization's written history over the years. Up until late-2004, early-2005, Sanger was acknowledged as co-founder in press releases, interviews, etc. (including this release from February 2004). In a mailing list post in October 2001, when Wikipedia and Nupedia still coexisted, Wales wrote:
Nupedia was started first, and is extremely high quality in the limited content that it does produce. After a year or so of working on Nupedia, Larry had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project specifically for people like you (and me!) who are intimidated and bored (sorry, Nupedia!) with the tedium of the process.
In 2005, however, Sanger says things started to change. According to The New York Times, Wales was caught editing Wikipedia pages to downplay Sanger's role, deleting references to "co-founder."
Further, says Sanger, in an interview with Hot Press in March 2009, Wales told the interviewer that Sanger named himself in press releases as co-founder. But Sanger, who was laid off in 2002, says this is impossible.
To refute the interview with Hot Press, Sanger posted a short-lived open letter to Wales on Wikipedia. "I tried to confront him last spring by putting an open letter to him on his Wikipedia user page, and he and his minions very quickly took it down," said Sanger. (The text of the letter is available here.)
Sanger believes Wales's reasons for denying his status as co-founder were at least partly financially motivated.
"In 2004, at just the time when he was leaving out any mention of me in discussing the history of Wikipedia, he was starting Wikia. That's actually when it was getting its funding," says Sanger.
"That's also when the star of Wikipedia really began to rise and started to enter into public consciousness. Jimmy Wales had a real financial motive to portray himself as the brains behind Wikipedia, when I really don't think he was."
Calacanis, too, says Wales used Wikipedia's success to attract funding for Wikia: "He just got a bunch of people to give him a bunch of money thinking, 'Oh, this is the guy who created Wikipedia.' Well guess what? He didn't create Wikipedia. Larry Sanger did."
Still, Sanger is reluctant to pinpoint exactly why the story has changed: "I've dealt with him enough to know that he makes it very difficult to read his motives. He has reasons to lie, and he's shown he is a liar, actually, in my opinion."
Responding to a request for comment today from Internet Evolution, Wales replied via email:
I think very highly of Larry Sanger, and think that it is unfortunate that this silly debate has tended to overshadow his work. As Larry himself wrote many years ago, "To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine..." He's right. As the first employee of the project, who left Wikipedia long before it became a charity, and as one of a great many early contributors whose ideas helped shape the project, he deserves a great debt of gratitude.
I consider it unfortunate that a showman like Jason Calacanis can use this to generate easy publicity for himself - but I suppose until Jason actually does something like what Wikipedia has done for the world, he'll have to be content calling me names - not in spite of me donating Wikipedia to charity, but because of it. I hope that someday he will come to see things in a different light - because doing something worthwhile is more rewarding than all the money in the world.
I guess I missed your point, I was just expressing my point.
I also don't think that the main point of this discussion is really the feud itself, I think the feud is just a good example which helps bring to the forefront what the real topic that is and should be discussed.
The validity, reliability of Wikipedia and whether is can really be considered a trusted and referencable source in and of itself.
The feud is merely an example of how the freedom of having an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" may not exactly be something that can truly "work" as an encyclopedia due to the freedom at which the articles can be altered to portray a specific point of view or opinion.
I think a better description of Wikipedia is "A collection of summaries and links for references with some opinionated editorializing thrown in". I think a redescription of the site would be appropriate since Wikipedia doesn't even fit it's own defintion of what an encyclopedia is.
From the Wikipedia Entry for Encyclopedia:
The encyclopaedia as we recognize it today was developed from the dictionary in the 18th century. Historically, both encyclopaedias and dictionarieshave been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts.
Ok, the gig's up I'm done yankin' y'alls chains, since you still don't get it...
I'll just leave it, continue you're ridiculous discussion on the topic of the feud between Wales and Sanger -- it appears you won't have it any other way!!
I think the problem with the use of former in regards to a a founder or co-founder.
It isn't appropriate like it is for something like director. A founder is in reference to a one time event, whereas a director is an on-going position.
Once a founder, always a founder since it's impossible to replace a founder with a new founder.
I know I don't think of Benjami Franklin or Thomas Jefferson as former founding fathers of the United States, even though once they helped with the founding of this country they moved on to other things. I believe Bill Gates will always be considered a founder of Microsoft, even if he retires or leaves the company, just as Steve Wozniak is still and will forever be considered a founder of Apple Computers even though he hasn't been involved in the company since the 1980's.
I hope you were referring to "theKosher"'s sad attempt at an analogy because my comments didn't have one...
As to the comment prior to yours, I never said anyone loses their founder or co-founder status. The use of the term "former" as it relates to someone's or something's history is appropriate if that someone or something is no longer engaged in the activity related to the term...
As in these examples, "Mr. Jones the former Director of the CIA", "Mrs. Smith the former co-founder of Katie's Cookies, now President of Mrs. Smith Cookies".
If you don't understand this concept, I'm sorry I went over your head with my understanding of the complexities of the English languague and it's various contextual variations...
As for whether or not a supreme being "created" or "founded" a Garden of Eden, that's a discussion I'll let you have with the Religious pundits -- I could care less...
Speaking of Columbus, it seems we on this board are considering situations in which history is rewritten to suit the notions of a few. And that's the situation that happened to the various myths that made Columbus an herioc figure in schools while I was growing up.
We can't say that Columbus was a "former explorer" but we can look back with clearer vision in the light of more recent revelations about the reality of what Columbus was really up to in the New World.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the truth will ultimately surface in the Wikipedia situation, just as it did for Columbus.
What a beautiful and succint way to end my involement in this ongoing and unending debate. What a discovery for me on Columbus Day that God was the former Founder of the Garden of Eden!!!
I can understand JD's reasoning the personaol feud was basically what I ws trying to avoid but his analogy was terribly misplace and inppropiate. May be too much of Columbus is flying on his head at this moment!!
D'Ambrosio, you don't lose a "founder" or a "co-founder" label or status because you later decide that your effort was wasted, or you were fired, or you found something better to do.
By your logic, God didn't create the Garden of Eden, because he later gave up on the place and (apparently) deleted it from Earth.
God: the "former founder" of the Garden of Eden.
With logic like this, might I nominate you for adminship, or perhaps the Arbitration Committe on Wikipedia?
I've never met either Mr. Wales or Mr. Sanger, but I do know their collaboration that has become "WikiPedia" is certainly at times a useful, often entertaining, and sometimes risque resource for information covering historical events and periods...
I'm not sure Nicole intended this to become a discussion on the Personal feud going on between these two individuals, but we've certainly seen some passionate and personal discourse here in the Comments board have we not??!!
I was going to suggest that the personal attacks and little digs stop because this little battle really only brings up one question for those of us on the outside looking in and that is, "Does it change how you will view or use WP in the future??" If so or if not, why or why not?
Never one to shy away from "Fanning the Flames" though, I will throw this out there for both sides to chew on:
If Mr. Sanger truly left WP on his own or otherwise and he has NO further involvement/investment, then he truly no longer is a "co-founder" -- BUT, he should be referred to as "former co-founder of ...."
So, while Mr. Wales may have it "right" technically, his approach clearly was/is way "WRONG".
You can't change the past to massage one's own ego, especially in today's Digital Age, where all documentation of actual histories are safely being preserved out there some where in the digital stratosphere...
How has he tried to change the history of Wikipedia? While he has not done it recently, these are a few examples how he has done exactly that in the past:
Whether he has stopped doing things like this now or not is unknown, but it shows that he has done exactly what he was accused of by this "so called co-founder fof Wikipedia"
How does Jimmy Wales change the history of Wikipedia with regards to his dealing with Larry Sanger? Certainly, a glimpse through the wikepdia entry Larry Sanger did profoundly acknowledged his contribution towards the making of Wikepedia. Most Wikepedia users like me know very well the limit to which we used it and everybody including Wales himself know that Wikepdia is powerful place to start your research.
Origins of Wikipedia
Wales, the de facto leader of Wikipedia,[43] started to play down Sanger's role in the founding of the project in 2005, a few years after Sanger left Wikipedia.[44][45][46] In light of Wales' view, Sanger posted on his personal webpage several links which appears to support the co-founder honorary appellation.[14][47] The citations include earlier versions of selected Wikipedia pages,[48] press releases from Wikipedia in the years of 2002 - 2004,[49] and early media coverage stories[50][51] describing Wikipedia as founded by Wales and Sanger.[14][47] Sanger was identified as a co-founder of Wikipedia at least as early as September 2001.[50] Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Wikipedia.[52][53] During the time of Sanger's involvement in the project, he was routinely known as a co-founder.[14][47][50] The Wikimedia Foundation's first press release in 2004 described Sanger as co-founder.[54] Sanger is widely cited in the media as a co-founder.[55][56][57] While Sanger organized the project Wales concentrated on Bomis.[14][15][58]
The origins of Wikipedia began when Sanger met up with an old friend.[7][9] Sanger was introduced to wikis at a January 2, 2001 dinner with Ben Kovitz, a computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's wiki.[7][9] Sanger thought a wiki would be a good platform to use and decided to present the idea to Jimmy Wales, at that time the head of Bomis.[59][60] Sanger initially proposed the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia and, after some initial skepticism, Wales agreed to try it.[13] Sanger formally proposed a "feeder" project for Nupedia titled "Let's make a wiki"[13] and created a new page on Ward's wiki named "WikiPedia."[60][61] Wales ascribed the broader idea of an encyclopedia that "non-experts" could contribute to, i.e., the Nupedia.[62] Wales mentioned that he heard of the wiki concept first from Jeremy Rosenfeld in 2005,[58] though he said earlier, in October 2001, that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software."[35] Sanger "came up with the name 'Wikipedia', a silly name for what was at first a very silly project."[62][63] Sanger conceived of the wiki-based encyclopedia as an idea to assist with Nupedia's growth inefficiency, and spearheaded and guided the community as its leader in its first year.[14][62][64] Sanger is credited for the policies and strategy that made Wikipedia possible.[15][65] Wikipedia became an accidental spin-off of Nupedia,[66] originally to allow collaboration on articles prior to the editorial review process.[12]
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Last week we gave you the low-down on readers' opinions on Web 2.0 applications in the workplace. They seemed lukewarm on the subject, and a recent study suggests their employers may agree. According to the results, more than half of U.S. organizations are banning apps like Twitter and Facebook in the enterprise, relaying a somewhat mixed message on the true importance of social networking for business.
If you're bummed about the weekend coming to a close, cheer up. We have good news. IE Radio is welcoming none other than Tim Westergren, founder of Pandora Media Inc. , today at 2:00 p.m. ET. Rejoice!
In a poll last week, we asked Internet Evolution readers whether Web 2.0 tools have made their jobs better, worse, or if they've had no impact at all. More than 100 readers weighed in, and here's the delectable pie that resulted:
Global communities are changing the nature of innovation on the Internet from a fiscal model based on greed, to an organic model based on greed, posits Saunders.
Verizon is making a big noise about making its wireless network open, but how will we measure if they've been successful? Do we count devices? Applications? Or just take their word for it?
Saunders predicts the decline and fall of America’s Internet empire, and explains how the Internet of the future will be multi-lingual as well as multi-national.
Cyber Warfare may be the next frontier for tactical hacking. It has already reared its head in Estonia, Russia, and Georgia, and some say it has been used by North Korea, China, and other world powers. The implications and the potential are both fascinating and scary.
Some thoughts on new tools that use the cloud for synchronization rather than storage, and how they might signal a shift in strategy for at least one software giant.
David Buckholtz, discusses several key benefits that have driven his company to embrace software-as-a-service, including cost efficiencies, improved time to market, and offloading non-strategic business processes. He also talks about some of the challenges in moving to this model.
Saunders explains how Internet users in North America are already vastly outnumbered by those in the rest of the world – a situation which is only set to accelerate.
Google has finally opened voting on Project 10^100, but rather than allow the public to vote on specific, concrete project ideas, Google spent a year watering down its submissions into broad idea 'themes.'
It is 20 years since the invention of the World Wide Web, and the Internet has changed beyond recognition since then. Steve Saunders peers into the future to predict what the Web will look like in another 20 years time – and he doesn’t like what he sees.
Bob Evans talks to Kirk Gutmann, GM’s Chief Technology & Strategy Officer, about the challenges of the current economic climate and his company’s focus on the customer, including the drive to connect employees with the customer using social networking, and how the company is driving innovation through technology.
When Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer went on the road to pitch Windows 7, it felt like the old days of big OS wars, Fritz Nelson reports. But new and much more significant wars are now being fought at the browser, on Netbooks and Smartphones, and what matters most is access to Internet applications (especially enterprise software in the cloud). Windows 7 may be the best ever, but it may also be the last, Nelson thinks.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital CIO Marianne James explains some of her organization's innovations, including its fetal care portal, its expansion beyond just being a community hospital, and its collaborative efforts among all of its constituents.
Wells Fargo EVP and head of information services Wayne Mekjian talks about topics such as mobile banking, integration, and innovation in times of upheaval, as well as the bank's 'envelope-free' customer experience.
Steve Saunders talks with the Secretary General of the ITU, Dr. Hamadoun Touré, about the digital divide, and how innovation and profit are driving forces in improving the developing world
Aneesh Chopra, the first federally appointed chief technology officer, discusses the Obama administration’s plans to help CTOs by improving the nation’s infrastructure, better harnessing research and development investments, and strengthening the country’s workforce; and how enterprise CTOs can assist the president with his tech agenda.
Pathways to New Intelligence: Making Smarter use of Enterprise Information Information challenges result in senior executives making uninformed or delayed decisions, but deployment of business analytics and optimization tools, along with a solid information agenda, help enterprises improve their organizational intelligence. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
