Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
Criticism of Jimmy Wales (view source)
Revision as of 14:42, 28 December 2008
, 14:42, 28 December 2008→Flip-flopping on paid editing of Wikipedia: Some Ars Technica dope thinks this is "about MyWikiBiz" and sour grapes. It's not. It's about Wales' inability to allow community consensus.
==Flip-flopping on paid editing of Wikipedia==
==Flip-flopping on paid editing of Wikipedia==
In August 2006, Wales [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html crafted a compromise] with an editing firm (MyWikiBiz.com) to create and serve GFDL content on their own website about paying entities not currently featured in Wikipedia. Other unpaid, independent editors could determine whether the material was worth scraping into Wikipedia.
In August 2006, Wales [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-August/051897.html crafted a compromise] with a paid-editing firm to create and serve GFDL content on their own website about paying entities not currently featured in Wikipedia. Other unpaid, independent editors could determine whether the material was worth scraping into Wikipedia.
However, just a couple of months later in October 2006, Wales would renege on this agreement and, in fact, chastised anyone in the public relations industry as "[http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html deeply unethical]" if they attempt to create or influence GFDL content of an encyclopedic nature. Of course, the GFDL specifically bars licensees from restricting content to either commercial or non-commercial parties, so Wales really had no clue here.
However, just a couple of months later in October 2006, Wales would renege on this agreement and, in fact, chastised anyone in the public relations industry as "[http://blog.bitepr.com/2006/08/jimmy_wales_on_.html deeply unethical]" if they attempt to create or influence GFDL content of an encyclopedic nature. Of course, the GFDL specifically bars licensees from restricting content to either commercial or non-commercial parties, so Wales really had no clue here.