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.
Defending your reputation publicly is not "unethical."
Check out the links supplied. We know the truth that Jimmy Wales called himself co-founder in 2002. We know that he called Larry Sanger a founder of the project in the three press releases that he approved and signed, in 2002, 2003, and 2004. That's not in doubt, you can still look at the press releases now.
You can't dismiss this as just a feud, when Jimmy Wales has been caught in lies. The Internet is a big archive. You can look things up and prove that some people are telling the truth and some are lying.
In my opinion any public arguments of that sort looks very unpleasant. But nobody knows the truth. Nobody can tell who is right and who is wrong. Moreover Larry Sangers can trully believe, that everything happened the way he thinks and Jimmy Wales has his own notion of the problem which can be absolutely opposite.We were not there, we didn't hear the conversations between that people, so we had no idea who's the real Wiki founder.
It's a good subject to discuss, but if you take this comment thread back to the start you'll see where it went off track and I'll admit to fanning the flames a bit...
In fact, I even claimed it in my first post. I've indicated in previous articles on this issue that the concept of an Encyclopedia maintained by the masses is doomed to failure unless there is serious oversight by accredited subject experts.
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?
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.
Ahh, the holiday season is upon us: People have begun bargain hunting, department stores are donning premature decorations, turkeys are being shot to death, and email inboxes everywhere are being graced with season-appropriate promotional materials so absurd, one might think they were actually written by the clinically insane.
Considering President Obama went and took the Nobel Peace Prize this year (attention hog, much?), Internet Evolution had to settle for a nomination for the second best prize in the world: a MIN Editorial & Design award. And we're happy to say that we won. Big time.
NEW YORK -- Web 2.0 Expo -- Here at the Javits Center in New York City, several industry innovators have come out to take the stage at the Web 2.0 Expo. But some are having a hard time keeping the audience's attention. The culprit? What else? Twitter.
The debate over whether Google is fairly aggregating newspaper content online has been going on for a while, with Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. leading the discourse. Typically it's followed a consistent pattern: Murdoch complains about Google stealing its content to no real benefit to his company, someone suggests hiding the content from Google, and things get quiet on the News Corp. side of the room.
While Google introduces its new Chrome OS (which I'm hearing will be widely available in one year? Did I mishear that?), IBM announced 10 new products today to help companies using IBM System z mainframe technology.
Smarter Collaboration: How to Thrive in a Challenging Business Environment Market conditions are changing faster than ever, and organizations need to improve their agility and adaptability in order to provide better service and improve processes. The ability to work with customers, business partners, and employees as effectively as possible - while at the same time holding down costs - is a key to success. 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.
In the final episode of this series about the death of Internet anonymity, Saunders describes how the Internet of the future will start to attain a level of intelligence that requires no human intervention. Scary.
What can users today do to protect their online privacy? The simplest and most obvious option is to not use the Internet – at all. However, once all digital information is consolidated over the Internet, trying to protect digital identity by simply unplugging from the Internet becomes impossible – a fact that has manifest implications for civil liberties, Saunders says.
By 2011 the number of Internet-connected sensors will exceed 1 trillion, making your chances of doing anything or going anywhere unnoticed pretty much zero. Saunders talks about how the 'sensortization' of the Internet is eliminating the traditional divide between online and offline populations.
The 20th Century Internet was characterized by the ability to interact with other people and information on the Internet largely without anyone knowing who you were. The Internet of this century, conversely, will be defined by identity. Saunders explains how Internet users are unwittingly contributing to the demise of the anonymous Internet.
Steve Saunders talks about the risks inherent in uncontrolled, widespread profiling of Internet users, and how one day this practice could form the basis of a new industry, the Outernet, which in economic terms will have outgrown the commercial value of the Internet itself.
Search companies and social networks are collecting incredibly detailed information about their users, says Steve Saunders, who predicts that these 'profiles' could one day become commodities to be bought and sold by companies on 'profile markets' or 'identity exchanges’ – the digital DNA equivalents of the financial and commodities exchanges on which stocks, oil, and gold are traded.
One of the most important Internet issues of all time is being ignored by the media. In this three-part video series Steve Saunders explains how search companies are turning the tables on their users by creating user profiles for financial gain, and how soon this trend will explode into full scale profiling.
More companies are trolling social networks to find and vet potential job candidates. Beware the pitfalls of blurring the line between personal and professional lives.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
Industry initiatives and government stimulus funds are giving enterprise software vendors a great opportunity to help build out and manage smart grid technologies.
The problem with telepresence is that it's not universally accepted, because video calling isn't. While we can all do video calling, we also apparently worry too much about how we look. If we want HD telepresence in our future, we have to dress down, mess up our hair, and dive into our online life.
The US loses about $20 billion a year on pirated software, movies, and music. But public policy can help stem the tide of digital theft. For example, France has recently passed a 'three strikes and you’re out' law, whereby if after two warning letters an individual continues to download pirated software then his Internet access will be cut off. US policy makers should consider adopting similar policies.
Financial management planning does not need to include Voodoo economics, but it does help to tap into the knowledge base of your team through some sort of real-time system. We explore your options.
When Reiter gets incensed over incompetent Verizon FiOS order-taking and support, he broadcasts it via Twitter. Did it do any good? How should your company offer Twitter support? Watch this for all the answers.
The successor to the BlackBerry Bold 9000 – the Bold 9700 – will be available soon in the US. Is it worth upgrading? Reiter's got one, and offers advice.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Email This
TWEET THIS
