Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales denies Fox News allegations

Neowin reported on Sunday that Wikipedia co-founder and chairman emeritus Jimmy Wales had relinquished his editing and content management roles at Wikimedia.  This was because he came under unrelenting fire from the Wikimedia community for single-handedly and arbitrarily deleting images he considered pornographic from Wikimedia commons. While there was significant debate and rhetoric, Wales denies any reports that he has stepped down from any position at all. In his Twitter feed yesterday, he was repeatedly tweeting inquisitive followers that Fox News was completely wrong about the story; Techcrunch learned via email that Wales was never contacted by Fox News about the reports of a top-level political shakeup.

Neowin was able to speak with one of the Wikimedia Stewards, the moderators in charge of community activity throughout the Wikimedia universe, about Fox News' coverage of the situation. He confirmed Wales' and Techcrunch's reports that Fox News had many of their facts wrong. "It's mostly fabrication[.] He didn't resign, he merely gave up a few technical abilities he doesn't really use. There is no chaos ensuing, and the Wikimedia projects are chugging along with the normal drama that that entails." Also, "He still has admin tools on English Wikipedia, where he actually uses them from time to time." According to the source, the "few technical abilities" that he did give up were, aside from being virtually unused, were given up as a statement to the community confirming his role as a community leader and not as an editorial authority. 

Reports of Wales scrambling to delete images in response to donor pressure and FBI investigations are also sensational, our source tells us.

"Jimmy wasn't deleting [content] because it was kiddie porn...it was deleted because he didn't think it fit within the project scope. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But his decision was more about whether the images were useful for our purposes than anything else. Sure, it is embarassing to have Fox screaming about how terrible you are, but that wasn't the most important thing."

Our source also wanted to emphasize that the fiery debate spawned by the pornography controversy was not only normal and healthy, but expected whenever Wales gets involved in editorial situations.

"Jimmy's leadership tends not to be needed in obvious cases. Where it isn't obvious is where we often need advice, and Jimmy is often the person to do that. It follows just by logic that when he's involved it isn't going to be obvious one way or the other what should happen, and controversy will therefore follow."

From browsing the Wikimedia discussion archives on the issues of arbitrary deletion and questionable content management, the issues can be clearly seen as inflammatory. However, inflammatory is the worst of it. From the sources Neowin has spoken to, inflammatory is perfectly acceptable and somewhat expected, and nothing like the chaos initially reported is actually transpiring. 

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

TechSpot: Managing your privacy online - Facebook

Next Story

Apple refreshes MacBook line overnight

16 Comments

I thought there were rules in place stopping news corporations from reporting on unfounded information? Yes, they're allowed to speculate on things (although I would imagine that they need to point out that it's speculation), but if Fox says outright "Jimmy Wales is stepping down" without providing a source then there should be some form of consequence, shouldn't there?

That said, I'm just annoyed that Fox are allowed to broadcast "their opinion" as news without any repercussions.

Intrinsica said,
I thought there were rules in place stopping news corporations from reporting on unfounded information? Yes, they're allowed to speculate on things (although I would imagine that they need to point out that it's speculation), but if Fox says outright "Jimmy Wales is stepping down" without providing a source then there should be some form of consequence, shouldn't there?

That said, I'm just annoyed that Fox are allowed to broadcast "their opinion" as news without any repercussions.

Nope, Fox News went to court for the right to make up news.
http://www.librarygrape.com/20...ws-has-first-amendment.html

Edited by Eric, May 18 2010, 2:45pm :

Intrinsica said,
I thought there were rules in place stopping news corporations from reporting on unfounded information? Yes, they're allowed to speculate on things (although I would imagine that they need to point out that it's speculation), but if Fox says outright "Jimmy Wales is stepping down" without providing a source then there should be some form of consequence, shouldn't there?

That said, I'm just annoyed that Fox are allowed to broadcast "their opinion" as news without any repercussions.

Thats all FOX News every does is broadcast their views as fact then when its asked about they just hide under the thats our commenters opinnion guise

Intrinsica said,

While I disagree with the verdict (you shouldn't be able to call yourself a news company if you're deliberately going to make stuff up) that was enlightening and disheartening to read. Thanks.

The idea is supposed to be that journalistic integrity prevents you from lying, or that when people realize you're lying they don't listen to you anymore. Unfortunately, people are willing to accept the lies instead.

Intrinsica said,
I thought there were rules in place stopping news corporations from reporting on unfounded information? Yes, they're allowed to speculate on things (although I would imagine that they need to point out that it's speculation), but if Fox says outright "Jimmy Wales is stepping down" without providing a source then there should be some form of consequence, shouldn't there?

That said, I'm just annoyed that Fox are allowed to broadcast "their opinion" as news without any repercussions.


Going on unfounded data is what FOX news is all about......

Fox created the "ruckus" that they reported by going out and basically selling to sponsors this image that Wikimedia promotes pornography.

Meanwhile:
Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia's climate doctor
Posted: December 19, 2009, 2:53 AM by NP Editor
lawrence solomon, climate change, Wikipedia
How Wikipedia's green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

By Lawrence Solomon

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world â€" Wikipedia â€" in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
<snip>
All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it â€" more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred â€" over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.
http://network.nationalpost.co...hive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

Yeah but they get what they want, by that I mean that more people watches their shows, either because they believe that crap they call News or because they hate them and "just want to see what they make up now".

Commenting is disabled on this article.