Message: 10 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:16:46 -0400 From: Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs To: Message-ID: 000001c545c4$5fc48b70$830ffea9@ls Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jimmy wrote:
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 "another perspective."
(And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my point was 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
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 you, Jimmy.
--Larry The memoir's location again: http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml
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...
pippu
--------------------------------- Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica Scaricalo ora!
Pippu,
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 other things).
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!"
Mark
On 20/04/05, Giuseppe DAngelo pippudoz@yahoo.it wrote:
Message: 10 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:16:46 -0400 From: Subject: RE: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Sanger's memoirs To: Message-ID: 000001c545c4$5fc48b70$830ffea9@ls Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jimmy wrote:
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 "another perspective."
(And of course you never opposed _neutrality_, my point was 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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger
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 you, Jimmy.
--Larry The memoir's location again: http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml
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...
pippu
Nuovo Yahoo! Messenger E' molto più divertente: Audibles, Avatar, Webcam, Giochi, Rubrica… Scaricalo ora! _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
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!"
Can I copy this to [[wikibooks: Wikipedia (film script)]] ?
Feel free.
I think we should cast Ben Affleck as Larry and Ice-T as Jimbo.
Mark
On 21/04/05, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
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!"
Can I copy this to [[wikibooks: Wikipedia (film script)]] ?
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
For the entire history of Bomis from day one until the current day, the percentage of revenue that comes from adult businesses has been under 10%. The bulk of the revenue of Bomis today comes from advertising syndicated from Google; in the past it was at various times Overture and NBCi which provided the bulk of the revenue.
Far from being a "secret", Bomis is a public website that anyone can look at anytime they like. If Bomis is pornography so is much of what happens in R rated movies.
Bomis _is_ a brand which is very different from the Wikipedia brand, which is why I have always insisted on keeping the two very separate.
--Jimbo
Oh, come on.
For the entire history of Bomis from day one until the current day, the percentage of revenue that comes from adult businesses has been under 10%. The bulk of the revenue of Bomis today comes from advertising syndicated from Google; in the past it was at various times Overture and NBCi which provided the bulk of the revenue.
"Under 10%" is code language for "Over 5%". Bomis is easily "legitimised" by adding tonnes of search-engine sponsored results, directory type stuff, syndicated adds, and the like, just to 'balance out' the pornographic content.
Many pornographic websites which are more explicitly pornographic than Bomis also have a search engine/syndicated advertising 'front', from which they derive the majority of their revenue, but...
Far from being a "secret", Bomis is a public website that anyone can look at anytime they like. If Bomis is pornography so is much of what happens in R rated movies.
I never said Bomis was a secret. I simply said that the fact that Bomis peddles pornography, and that the history of Wikipedia is intricately intertwined with Bomis, is kept a secret of sorts. Read the Wikipedia articles on the issue, you will not see much mention of pornography, but go to #wikipedia on freenode and you will hear a much different story.
And I remind you that in many R-rated movies, there are... well, you can find that information at Wikipedia.
Bomis _is_ a brand which is very different from the Wikipedia brand, which is why I have always insisted on keeping the two very separate.
Yes, but is not Bomis the ultimate origin of Nupedia which is the ultimate origin of Wikipedia? You have said many things in this discussion confirming that Nupedia and at first Wikipedia were both Bomis projects. Sure, there was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes "less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
So while in your mind they may be very seperate, this is not something that everybody follows along with, similar to your delusion that you aren't a sort of god-king but rather just a sort of "amicus vicipaedii" who is respected so much people tend to do what you say. I hope that eventually you will catch on to the reality of the issue - what real people actually really think, their real motivations rather than those you imagine for them, and that what people think and what you would like people to think are often very different.
Mark
And then, of course there is the http://babes.bomis.com/ Bomis Babe Report.
While not exactly pornographic, it is obviously intended to be "babelicious", and I can guess that not only do you make money off of it somehow, but that you don't count it as "pornographic" (because really, it isn't exactly.)
Mark
On 22/04/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, come on.
For the entire history of Bomis from day one until the current day, the percentage of revenue that comes from adult businesses has been under 10%. The bulk of the revenue of Bomis today comes from advertising syndicated from Google; in the past it was at various times Overture and NBCi which provided the bulk of the revenue.
"Under 10%" is code language for "Over 5%". Bomis is easily "legitimised" by adding tonnes of search-engine sponsored results, directory type stuff, syndicated adds, and the like, just to 'balance out' the pornographic content.
Many pornographic websites which are more explicitly pornographic than Bomis also have a search engine/syndicated advertising 'front', from which they derive the majority of their revenue, but...
Far from being a "secret", Bomis is a public website that anyone can look at anytime they like. If Bomis is pornography so is much of what happens in R rated movies.
I never said Bomis was a secret. I simply said that the fact that Bomis peddles pornography, and that the history of Wikipedia is intricately intertwined with Bomis, is kept a secret of sorts. Read the Wikipedia articles on the issue, you will not see much mention of pornography, but go to #wikipedia on freenode and you will hear a much different story.
And I remind you that in many R-rated movies, there are... well, you can find that information at Wikipedia.
Bomis _is_ a brand which is very different from the Wikipedia brand, which is why I have always insisted on keeping the two very separate.
Yes, but is not Bomis the ultimate origin of Nupedia which is the ultimate origin of Wikipedia? You have said many things in this discussion confirming that Nupedia and at first Wikipedia were both Bomis projects. Sure, there was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes "less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
So while in your mind they may be very seperate, this is not something that everybody follows along with, similar to your delusion that you aren't a sort of god-king but rather just a sort of "amicus vicipaedii" who is respected so much people tend to do what you say. I hope that eventually you will catch on to the reality of the issue - what real people actually really think, their real motivations rather than those you imagine for them, and that what people think and what you would like people to think are often very different.
Mark
-- SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM POSSIT MATERIARI ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE
Were is this alleged pornographic content on Bomis, apart from some nude shots I cannot find anything. I am mightily interested in finding this alleged pornography :)
W
At 15:24 22.04.2005 +0700, you wrote:
Were is this alleged pornographic content on Bomis, apart from some nude shots I cannot find anything. I am mightily interested in finding this alleged pornography :)
dito. tell me if you found it :-) Oh zees crasy Americans. Zey are so Vonderful.
dirk
[[de:Benutzer:Southpark]] [[en:User:Zeitgeist]] [[meta:User:Southgeist]]
Walter van Kalken a écrit:
Were is this alleged pornographic content on Bomis, apart from some nude shots I cannot find anything. I am mightily interested in finding this alleged pornography :)
W
Nod. This is actually quite a disappointing site ;-)
On 4/22/05, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I never said Bomis was a secret.
No, you called it a "semi-secret"; is that really that different? I'm not sure it even strictly makes sense as a term (a bit like "semi-unique"): "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 other things)."
Sure, there was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes "less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
So, really, why does it matter? Who cares? If you can point to a single editorial decision, a single carrot or stick offered by Bomis, or by Jimmy or any of its employees, that suggests that this relationship has ever, in any way, had an influence on the structure, content, community, or values of Wikipedia, then I will accept that it is at least historically noteworthy. Until then, I really don't see the need to continue to bring it into discussions.
I don't know whether Bomis should be classed as a porn portal with a respectable front, or a general portal with a seedy backroom, or neither, or something in between. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't care - unless someone can demonstrate to me that it has made *any* difference to Wikipedia besides giving its detractors something unanswerably trivial to talk about.
No, you called it a "semi-secret"; is that really that different? I'm not sure it even strictly makes sense as a term (a bit like "semi-unique"): "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 other things)."
The thing is, I didn't say Bomis itself was a semi-secret, as Jimbo implied. What I said and what was meant by it is that Bomis peddles porn, and that you don't see that mentioned in any Wikipedia history-ofs - what do they call Bomis, and how do they describe it? Most of those descriptions could more aptly apply to sites that didn't have a "Babe report".
And I wonder, is the Babe Report's "tim" the same tim as Tim Shell?
Sure, there was never a sign posted at Wikipedia that said "Come Buy Porn from Bomis!", but the fact that much of the funding for Wikipedia comes directly or indirectly (ie, through you and other donors who profit from Bomis) from a business which makes "less than 10%" of its revenue through pornography.
So, really, why does it matter? Who cares? If you can point to a single editorial decision, a single carrot or stick offered by Bomis, or by Jimmy or any of its employees, that suggests that this relationship has ever, in any way, had an influence on the structure, content, community, or values of Wikipedia, then I will accept that it is at least historically noteworthy. Until then, I really don't see the need to continue to bring it into discussions.
"the need to bring it into discussions"... There is no need. This only has to do with the history of Wikipedia, not the actual present content or structure.
I don't know whether Bomis should be classed as a porn portal with a respectable front, or a general portal with a seedy backroom, or neither, or something in between. And, to be perfectly honest, I don't care - unless someone can demonstrate to me that it has made *any* difference to Wikipedia besides giving its detractors something unanswerably trivial to talk about.
Yes, I'm guessing without Bomis Premium and the Bomis Babes, there would be at least a few dollars less in funding available to the Wikimedia foundation.
Not that I personally care about the explicit nature of materials - any man on this list who denies viewing pornography at least once every couple of months is probably either lying, involved in a gratifying relationship, or doesn't have many hormones - but I favour a policy of full disclosure and feel it is better to make the fact well-known up front rather than having a reporter from a seedy tabloid making big money off of it later because nobody really ever found out.
Mark
Mark Williamson wrote:
Yes, I'm guessing without Bomis Premium and the Bomis Babes, there would be at least a few dollars less in funding available to the Wikimedia foundation.
The point is: you're guessing, and guessing wrong. You know nothing about my personal finances, the finances of my companies, etc.
If Bomis had never existed in any way shape or form, more money would have been available for Wikipedia, not less.
--Jimbo
Mark Williamson a écrit:
Far from being a "secret", Bomis is a public website that anyone can look at anytime they like. If Bomis is pornography so is much of what happens in R rated movies.
I never said Bomis was a secret. I simply said that the fact that Bomis peddles pornography, and that the history of Wikipedia is intricately intertwined with Bomis, is kept a secret of sorts. Read the Wikipedia articles on the issue, you will not see much mention of pornography, but go to #wikipedia on freenode and you will hear a much different story.
I mention it in nearly every interview, and in most presentations.
I think the .com failure was pretty bad for many people (it was for my little bank savings). I like the idea that a .com helped Wikipedia to arise from nothing but expectations. And I even like it more that this .com was a soft porn site. I think it shows there is good in everything even if some people really disapprove of such sites :-)
Usually, most reactions are good. And if you fear such a comment, it is best to say it on humourous tone than to hide it.
Ant
Anthere wrote:
I mention it in nearly every interview, and in most presentations.
I think the .com failure was pretty bad for many people (it was for my little bank savings). I like the idea that a .com helped Wikipedia to arise from nothing but expectations. And I even like it more that this .com was a soft porn site. I think it shows there is good in everything even if some people really disapprove of such sites :-)
The problem is, it just is not accurate. Yes, it's a cute story, but really, it is just not accurate.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
I mention it in nearly every interview, and in most presentations.
I think the .com failure was pretty bad for many people (it was for my little bank savings). I like the idea that a .com helped Wikipedia to arise from nothing but expectations. And I even like it more that this .com was a soft porn site. I think it shows there is good in everything even if some people really disapprove of such sites :-)
The problem is, it just is not accurate. Yes, it's a cute story, but really, it is just not accurate.
--Jimbo
Ah ? Embarassing :-( But then, what is the accurate story ?
Ant
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
