Jimmy Wales on Wikipedia, Larry Sanger on Jimmy Wales
“Vandalism is a very minor problem,” insists Wales.
By Jon Bernstein Published 26 January 2011 16:40
In tomorrow's issue of New Statesman (it's good, you should buy it . . . every week) I've written a profile of one of the most influential men around – but a man whose face you may not recognise.
When I met Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales on 13 January, two days before the website marked its tenth anniversary, we spoke about a range of subjects. Here are a few extracts from the piece:
On Wikipedia and the "big society"
Perhaps Wikipedia is an example of what the Prime Minister, David Cameron, calls the "big society". "It is, yeah, of course it is," Wales says. "We shouldn't replace the NHS with a wiki. But thinking about community participation and involvement, a spirit of volunteerism, a spirit of helping out, a spirit of self-reliance, rather than imagining that the government and taxes should solve all things – then fine."
On managing malicious edits
Wales maintains that vandalism – the deliberate insertion of erroneous content – is "a very minor problem". In most cases, for most subjects, malicious edits are rare and are corrected quickly. Only for contentious pages – such as the one on the former US president George W Bush, where it takes just "37 seconds before someone edits it with a curse word" – is it necessary to pre-moderate changes made by the public.
On not voting
"No, I don't vote. I have in the past, but . . ." He pauses again, and then says: "It's a rather odd reason why I don't. In Florida, in order to vote, you have to register with your actual address, and for security reasons, for the safety of my family – because there are many, many lunatics – I can't register to vote with my real address. If I could register to vote with a fake address I could vote, but apparently that's a felony." He concedes that "it sounds slightly paranoid. But," he says, "it's not paranoid."
I also spoke to Larry Sanger, the other man credited with getting Wikipedia off the ground. The conversation confirms the uncomfortable relationship between the two:
Sanger has no doubts about his own contribution to Wikipedia. "It was basically my full-time job," he tells me on the phone from Ohio. "This is going to sound like an exaggeration, given the way Jimmy Wales talks about the history of Wikipedia, [but] I never had much of a relationship with Jimmy Wales while we were working on Wikipedia, because Jimmy Wales didn't work very much on Wikipedia in the first year."
This notwithstanding, does he not miss that excitement of co-operation, the development of a working friendship, even, during those early start-up days? "We were never friends," he says flatly. Are they still in touch? He laughs. "No!"
Read the full piece in the issue, plus there's an edited transcript of the full interview here.
UPDATE: Wikipedia's benevolent dictator is now online.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists

















5 comments
I wonder when the news media will figure out that the Wikimedia Foundation spends on program services only 41 cents of every dollar they scam from donors, which earns them ONE STAR (out of four!) from Charity Navigator in organizational efficiency. In fact, their KPMG audit discovered that it only takes about $2.5 million to keep the servers running, provide ample bandwidth, and staff a team of code developers to keep things running smoothly. Why, then, is the ask for $20 million?
I also wonder why the news media never thought to cover the 2009 story of how the Wikimedia Foundation needed extra office space, and as if by magic, they hand-picked Jimmy Wales' for-profit corporation to be their landlord, THEN obtained competitive bids, THEN asked Wales' for-profit company to match the average of the competitive bids.
I too wonder why the media don't seem to care that the 2010 market research study of past Wikimedia Foundation donors was awarded to the former employer of the WMF staffer running the project, without any competitive bidding whatsoever. And when the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation was asked how much the project cost, the guy asking the question was banned from the online discussion.
For someone wanting details of Bessemer Conversion for homework, Wiki is fine. But wherever right wing perversion is liable to affect a Wiki entry, expect it to do so- in matters political, social and religious. Like The Simpsons, Wiki used to be a breath of fresh air- but, as fully expected, the greedy, the red-necks and the Catholics woke up, and crunched on the Wales neck with deadly effect. Britannica is more honest in controversial matters.
Guide for the Wiki-Perplexed
http://wikipediareview.com/
Two quick points:
1) Sanger is apparently correct versus Wales. If anyone doubts, I recommend reading through the mailing list archives of the first few months of Wikipedia. It's a very different story than the version put forth nowadays. Sanger's enthusiasm and efforts for Wikipedia then is striking, when viewed through present eyes.
2) The "Big Society" idea is *exactly* one of the deepest idea wrong about Wikipedia, where it's exploitative and destructive. See a column I wrote for _The Guardian_ a while back:
"Wikipedia isn't about human potential, whatever Wales says"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet
Post new comment