As far as I know, Bomis is a very informal environment.
And there is a little semi-secret that many people don't know: Bomis
is in the business of pornography (though, to be fair, they also do
So most of the funding for Wikipedia came directly or indirectly from
a pornography business.
The point being, it's a small business which I don't think ever had
more than 30 or so employees at one time. From what I can tell, the
occurances are just Larry walking up to Jimmy in his office saying "Yo
Jimbo, I been thinkin yo, howzabout we try that wicked Wikiwiki
soffware wit Nupedia? Whatcha think bout that man?" and Jimmy saying
"Yo Larry my man, dat is a wikked awesome idea!"
On 20/04/05, Giuseppe DAngelo <pippudoz(a)yahoo.it> wrote:
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:16:46 -0400
Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'll just restate my point, which is that the
first person to
propose that we move to a wiki system to resolve the problems
of Nupedia was Jeremy Rosenfeld.
What does "propose" mean, then? I suppose you mean he mentioned such an
idea to you. Well, so what? That didn't lead to the creation of Wikipedia,
did it? You're implying that it did. But it didn't.
I mention *all sorts* of ideas to other people, and other people have
mentioned zillions of ideas to me. This doesn't make any such person,
somehow, "the first person to propose" the idea, in the sense of being
creditable with formulating the project that actually came into being.
And why, again, Jimmy, did you take four years to mention this, if it's
worth mentioning at all? Why did you never tell me, or Wikipedians, before?
Why is it worth mentioning just now?
I just think this is an
interesting bit of historical trivia which in no way detracts
from your _causal_ role in the founding of Wikipedia.
But to say that Jeremy Rosenfeld was "the first person to propose" a wiki
encyclopedia is precisely to imply, isn't it, that he played the seminal
causal role in founding Wikipedia--which is just false. It isn't just
(And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my
that you never were happy with NPOV _as a technical term to
describe a social concept of co-operation_. You said so
yourself the other day, and I think that's great.)
The social concept of co-operation was always my idea of the purpose of the
neutrality policy, as well. That was quite explicit in Nupedia's policy
statement, drafted by me, as well as the longer statement of Wikipedia's
policy on the NPOV page, which I drafted.
I disagree with the exact formulation of the words, "the neutral point of
view." I personally advocated everything else about the policy, more
strenuously than anyone else did; and if I had not done so, Wikipedia might
not now be committed to its neutrality policy.
I apologize most sincerely if my saying so has
upset you; it
was not my intention.
You don't need to apologize, condescendingly, for upsetting me, Jimmy;
obviously, that's just a further insult, as it puts attention on the fact
that I am upset. Sure I am. Kind of you to observe that. If I were to
say, "Jimmy really had nothing to do with Wikipedia. When I asked him to,
he compliantly set up a wiki, and I proceeded to do virtually everything to
get the project started and set it up to become a success; he was on the
sidelines most of the time; and, of course, he paid me"--you would be upset,
too, I suspect. But I do not say this, out of respect.
I am upset, and also disappointed and severely disillusioned. But if for
anything, you need to apologize for implying something false, which, if
passed around much, would create entirely the wrong impression among your
many admirers in the Wikimedia community: "The original idea for a wiki for
Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry, but by Jeremy Rosenfeld." That's an
apology that I would find valuable.
I see that someone has already made use of your declaration to say something
completely wrong on my Wikipedia user page:
I expect that your perfectly innocent comment will now be repeated, with
perfect innocence, to journalists. Then this and other such historical
revisionism on your part will help ensure that I will in the future be
portrayed as (1) not the person who came up with the idea of Wikipedia, (2)
merely and singlehandedly responsible for the "miserable failure" that was
Nupedia, and who was fired because it was a failure, (3) on Wikipedia,
merely an employee taking orders and not really responsible for any of the
policy of the project, (4) opposed to an open project altogether, and (5)
opposed to neutrality. That, at least, is how it seems some of my
detractors want me to be portrayed, even though my memoir shows every part
of it to be outrageously false.
And after this, instead of treating me as a person with a legitimate,
well-founded complaint, I imagine that you will respond by implying that I
am "upset," and that you "apologize that I am upset." That's
mighty big of
The memoir's location again:
I was just wondering, coming in cold and knowing bugger all about
anything, but wouldn't there exist documentation, like internal memos,
minutes, or whatever the company/firm/sweatshop used in its day to day
business dealings and communications. Or was this some casual chit
chat standing around the water cooler with everyone saying: great
idea! Drop everything and get to it. Or did it occur during a 5
minute smoko break - or maybe walking back together with your cups of
latte from the local stucko bucko thingo, etc. Or maybe you were all
having lunch at Antonio's and you had a mouthful of focaccia and no
one heard you...
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi,
Rubrica… Scaricalo ora!
Wikipedia-l mailing list
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE