wired.com — He has edited his own bio to give himself more credit for founding the site, the wiki's edit logs reveal. He's also excised references to soft pornography on a website he ran earlier in his career. Didn't he learn anything from Adam Curry?
Dec 20, 2005 View in Crawl 4
angedinoirDec 20, 2005
Yawn. Doesn't wired have anything better to write about?
capn_cavemanDec 20, 2005Submitter
It is his site, but he wants it to be known as a serious reference source.
siroccoDec 20, 2005
"If it isn't right, you can edit it." That's all I ever hear the Wiki-morons saying. Now, a guy decides it wasn't right, and makes his edits. The result: crucifixion.Major [Digg] for blatant hypocrisy.
zeligDec 20, 2005
It's called an autobiography.
trexDec 20, 2005
I love digg double standards: Leo & the gang hates Adam Curry -> Digg hates Adam Curry. Wikipedia creator enhances his own role in wikipedia -> "Well, it IS his site. At least he has an excuse, unlike others we know."Unbelievable.
viperdaimaoDec 20, 2005
Who's to say that what it said before wasnt wrong and he just corrected it? If your biography said something unflattering like you were a bad tipper, when really it was just that one waiter who was an ass and you didnt tip him, wouldnt you edit the entry? This is a tempest in a teapot, no digg.
aboris26Dec 20, 2005
Why is such a bad thing for someone who actually knows what is going on in a subject to edit it? I'm sure he was just removing fabrications and lies that vandals continually put up. Damn you John Siegentheller you have ruined open journalism, you cranky old fart.
schmittyDec 20, 2005
So two sentences is damning evidence? LAAAAMMMEEE....
kamizuDec 20, 2005
solution: stick the "neutrality disputed" thing on every auto-biography on wikipediaseriously, we can't trust others to write another man's story. what happens when we do?the john siegenthaler incidentwe can't trust the people themselves to write their own story. what happens when we do?the adam curry incidentyou guys want to accuse jimmy wales of hypocrisy? how about making up your f**king mind. who the hell is to tell a man's story if neither the people or the man can write it? why not bar biographies on wiki altogether?