Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit (vice.com) 15
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales' auction of an NFT and the iMac he used to build the website has stirred up drama in the notoriously rigid Wikipedia community. The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page -- a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other. Wikipedia has strict rules against self-promotion and some editors felt that Wales' announcement violated that rule. "Am I crazy? Jimbo has posted a thread on his user talk page promoting an auction of some of his stuff, which he has refused to confirm would not benefit him personally," editor Floquenbeam said on December 3.. "This is self-promotion 101, right? I've told him if he doesn't remove it, I will. That's policy, right? [...] Wales pushed back, saying he'd spoken to the WMF communications and legal departments and that they'd agreed a simple post about the auction on his user talk page would be fine.
The conversation went on like this for about a day before another editor shut it down, saying it was "past the point of productive discourse." The thread announcing the auction on Wales' talk page was removed but another thread remains where he's answering questions about the auction and NFTs from other users. An email thread on the Wikimedia-L listserv is more measured but still has some pedantic arguments that is common with Wikimedia drama. Some users are concerned that he's taking something from Wikimedia and could use the money to fund his commercial enterprise WT:Social. Another user said "The concept of NFT seems to go against the very principles of Wikipedia. On one hand, we share our work freely, both in terms of access and by using a copyleft license. On the other hand, this NFT takes something that was shared freely and then restricts it so that it can be sold." The NFT Wales is selling is a website that allows users to relive the moment of Wikipedia's creation. The site looks like Wikipedia did in its fledgling moments, and whoever wins the auction can edit it as they will.
The second big controversy among Wikipedia's editors was whether Wales had the right to auction off something like this and if he was even recreating the site correctly at the moment of its inception. The discussion devolved into a lengthy conversation about who owns the rights to what they edit on Wikipedia and the state of servers and timestamps from 2001. It's worth mentioning here that Wales' NFT is a recreation of a memory and not an actual editable bit of code that will be reflected on Wikipedia in any way. Eventually, all sides relented. "There is at least one good thing that should be coming out of this," editor Smallbones said. "The community has made it very clear that anything that is considered to be promotional or an advertisement, even if it is for a charitable cause, on any page in Wikipedia, posted by any editor -- even the most senior and most respected -- may be removed by any editor at any time."
The conversation went on like this for about a day before another editor shut it down, saying it was "past the point of productive discourse." The thread announcing the auction on Wales' talk page was removed but another thread remains where he's answering questions about the auction and NFTs from other users. An email thread on the Wikimedia-L listserv is more measured but still has some pedantic arguments that is common with Wikimedia drama. Some users are concerned that he's taking something from Wikimedia and could use the money to fund his commercial enterprise WT:Social. Another user said "The concept of NFT seems to go against the very principles of Wikipedia. On one hand, we share our work freely, both in terms of access and by using a copyleft license. On the other hand, this NFT takes something that was shared freely and then restricts it so that it can be sold." The NFT Wales is selling is a website that allows users to relive the moment of Wikipedia's creation. The site looks like Wikipedia did in its fledgling moments, and whoever wins the auction can edit it as they will.
The second big controversy among Wikipedia's editors was whether Wales had the right to auction off something like this and if he was even recreating the site correctly at the moment of its inception. The discussion devolved into a lengthy conversation about who owns the rights to what they edit on Wikipedia and the state of servers and timestamps from 2001. It's worth mentioning here that Wales' NFT is a recreation of a memory and not an actual editable bit of code that will be reflected on Wikipedia in any way. Eventually, all sides relented. "There is at least one good thing that should be coming out of this," editor Smallbones said. "The community has made it very clear that anything that is considered to be promotional or an advertisement, even if it is for a charitable cause, on any page in Wikipedia, posted by any editor -- even the most senior and most respected -- may be removed by any editor at any time."
Waste of time (Score:1)
This waste of time just shows how doomed Wikipedia is in their little bubble.
It also shows how doomed Slashdot is to think this is if any consequence to people who actually contribute to society.
Re: (Score:2)
You're on a dying news site talking about how one of the world's largest websites is doomed
Re: Waste of time (Score:2)
The irony is not lost on me.
Many a tech-minded person of a certain age reminisces of the days Everquest was king, Unreal was a game - not just an engine, information wanted to be free, and being mentioned on Slashdot meant something.
Don't scroll past this comment (Score:5, Funny)
Don't scroll past this comment. If everybody reading /. Just took two seconds to reflect upon how much of an idiot Jimmy Wales is, we could have funded wikipedia.
We know that making fun of Jimmy Wales on slashdot costs money, and that's why we're asking for this small donation.
So (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fire them (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia should fire them. Anyone who is invested enough in wikipedia to get upset at this is too invested to be objective. They should probably figure out some offensive stunt to do once or twice per decade to help identify and prune out the problem editors.
Actually, if they just randomly fired a few percent of the editors every month, the site would improve greatly.
(And yes, I am aware that the editors are unpaid volunteers and not employees. They can still be fired. Ban their accounts and tell them not to come back.)
Re: (Score:3)
:)
Wikipedia editing is the great gathering place for those on the spectrum and narcissists.
Re:Fire them (Score:5, Interesting)
All WikiEditors to action other NFTs to same edit (Score:2, Interesting)
There is no limit to the number of NFTs to the same object since it is just a link.
All the disgruntled wike editors or admins should also auction off additional NFTs to that very same original wiki edit!
Maybe even an NFT to Wales' NFT!
Re: (Score:3)
Do you hate fire alarms, and warning labels? People sometimes get sick and wind up in the hospital, so... we just need to get rid of hospitals? Problem solved?
Wikipedia editors are a very strange lot (Score:4, Insightful)
Their antics always remind me of those of reddit moderators.
It can not be possibly be healthy to be so deeply enmeshed in a free website.
I dunno, seems like clear self-dealing. (Score:3)
I've been on tons of forums where people do things like post about buying some girl scout cookies, or supporting their "Ride against MS!", or "Relay For Life" or whatever. I get it, each individual thing is minor, but if you let that kind of thing get some legs under it, pretty soon it's 10% or 20% of your traffic. Because EVERYONE has a good idea on how to help someone. But, the fundamental reason they have to ask for help is because NOBODY goes out of their way to proactively send money.
Wikimedia is already out there begging for donations to fund their site. If they want to sell the NFT to fund Wikimedia, then I can see how talking to the board makes a difference about advertising it on the site. But if Wales wants to sell the NFT to fund some other charity and his social site, he can go advertise that on his social site, or on the charity's home page, or on Facebook, or on the talk-show circuit. Advertising it on Wikipedia is attempting to monetize Wikipedia for his ends. Having that happen because he's a special case goes against the picture they're trying to paint, and he needs to be above that.
Re: I dunno, seems like clear self-dealing. (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time understanding if the drama is about him doing this at all, or just promoting it on Wikipedia. Either way this feels very tempest in a teacup-ish.
I think Wales needs to be crystal clear about where the money is going to go. If it stays inside WM foundation or Wikipedia, then how is this different than him "personally" asking you to donate money? It doesn't seem like self promotion if he's not actually getting anything out of it personally, it just sounds like a fundraising gimmick.
On
Really? They're insane? (Score:2)
The word you're looking for is 'angry'