The inventor of blogging, podcasting, RSS and a bunch of other things has a post up about what’s wrong with Wikipedia — as he sees it — and as usual the post says a whole lot more about Dave than it does about Wikipedia. Not that there aren’t certain things about Wikipedia that could use some work, because there are. Like any social-media effort, it has its flaws. But I think most of what Dave doesn’t like about Wikipedia has more to do with him than it does with the encyclopedia itself.

The problems seem to revolve around Dave’s entry — something he has complained a fair bit about in the past — and how it doesn’t give him enough credit for the things he invented (or helped to standardize or popularize, depending on how you look at it). But of course, Dave doesn’t describe it that way: he describes it asa vendetta.” That says it all right there. For Dave, there’s no such thing as a difference of opinion — there’s what Dave believes, and then there are the unbelievers who want to destroy what is good and right. He blames the Wikipedia model for:

“Usurping authority, and replacing it with anonymity and giving power to those who who tear down creativity, to remove the incentive to share, unless you’re completely selfless and don’t mind if others take credit for your accomplishments. That’s not the nature of creativity, btw, creative people fiercely insist on credit, fight for it.”

See how that works? A different opinion of how RSS developed, or podcasting, or whatever isn’t a difference of opinion. It’s “giving power to those who tear down creativity.” But is Dave right when he says that the nature of creativity is to “fiercely insist on credit?” I guess for some people it is. Lots of creative people I know do it because they feel compelled to create, and because they want people to experience something — not because they want to “fight for” credit.

Dave then cites the U.S. constitution for support, arguing that Wikipedia should allow people who don’t like their profiles to “confront their accusers.” As my blogging friend Ian Betteridge notes in the comments on Dave’s post, this pretty much sums up why Dave is wrong about Wikipedia. The whole point of the model is to find the middle ground, the common ground, the mututally agreed-upon version of events — not for people to pursue vendettas and confront their accusers. On a side note, Frank Shaw of WaggenerEdstrom is also wrong about Wikipedia.

About the author

Mathew 2414 posts

I'm a Toronto-based former senior writer with Gigaom and my favorite things to write about are social technology, media and the evolution of online behavior

33 Responses to “What’s wrong with Dave Winer”
  1. You can't really have an “opinion” about how certain things were invented. If you were watching when it happened it was obvious what was going on. While his conspiracy theories might not help his cause, I think the facts are pretty simple on who invented RSS, OPML and Podcasting.

    • I'm going to disagree with you there, Jevon. I think you can have an
      opinion about how things were invented, especially when they involve
      multiple people — the invention of the telephone, the telegraph,
      radio, television and many other things illustrate that just as well
      as anything Dave was involved in. But regardless of that, I guess the
      question is whether you think Wikipedia reflects Dave's
      accomplishments fairly or not.

      On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Disqus

  2. Indeed, why can't people just disagree? Why don't you say “What I don't agree with that Dave Winer says?” or if that's too long “What's wrong with what Dave Winer says?” This is a hateful way to frame a discussion. You need to take a look at your own internal process Mathew, because you're not practicing what you preach.

    • Dave, you're just proving my point for me. It's not hateful — I just
      said that you're wrong. I phrased the title that way because it's
      similar to your headline, that's all. It's a rhetorical device. At
      no point have I said that I hate you, or that you're a bad person, or
      anything even close to that — because I don't think any of those
      things. I just think you're looking at it in the wrong way, that's
      all.

      On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Disqus

      • My main point is that you're not practicing what you preach. Take care Mathew.

  3. There's so much more wrong with Dave Winer than is suggested here…

  4. Before leaving thread, I wanted to give you credit for something. At least you put your name on this. I still think it's very bad to put someone's name in the title of a blog post with such a negative thought. You must know how the search engines treat those things. Eventually you'll develop a following who wants to hurt you, if you haven't already (it happens to everyone) and they'll do this to you, and you'll know how it feels. But like I said, at least you had the guts to put your name on it. That's something.

  5. FWIW, I just went and read the discussion page on Dave's wikipedia entry; hard to think of another way to describe what currently is there other than a vendetta.

    Frank Shaw

    • That may be, Frank — but the discussion page is not part of what most
      people look at when they look at a Wikipedia entry.

      On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Disqus

      • But they should — the discussion page is the only place where the tangible examples show up. In this case, it shows an enormous amoutn of effort by one person to change Dave's entry in a way that is not in line either Wikipedia guidelines. FWIW, it's good practice to look at the discussion page on any entry that has the slightest hint of controversy.

        • And it also shows that ultimate that one person couldn't actually change it to suit himself – the person you're referring to has effectively been barred from editing Dave's entry.

          What that discussion page shows is the exact opposite of what you're arguing: it shows that people with vendettas don't win.

      • Mathew, that's off-point. You're the one who got into motives when you said the claims of credit are based on mere differences of opinion, also something you wouldn't see on the current version of the main entry page. The systematic attacks on Dave's entry have descended even to marking it for deletion. I'd feel a lot better about reading your blog again if you admitted there has been an element of vendetta here. Because that's a fact.

        Love,
        Amy
        A Dave partisan, so sue me

        • And yet, the entry is still there – and it still gives Dave reasonable credit for what he's done. Yes, people HAVE tried to attack Dave through his Wikipedia entry. But, thanks to the very mechanisms that Dave has criticised, they have failed – and they will continue to do so.

          • I'm going to agree with Ian on this one, Amy. Nice try, though :-)

            On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Disqus

  6. […] against him and his accomplishments I felt the whiney line had been crossed for the last time. Now Mathew Ingram in his professional best wrote a post about what Dave had written, upon which Dave promptly jumped into the comments and called Mathew a […]

  7. Credit is worth fighting for because it has economic consequences, not just ego consequences.

    • Thanks Michael. I just read this piece on one of Ingram's favorite blogs.

      http://tinyurl.com/2n4rbc

      It's all about people getting credit for their accomplishments.

      Damn right it's important.

  8. The problem with non-artists is that they lack a certain depth of understanding within the creative process and therefore are denied the reward intrinsically present in the act of creating. As such they seek credit.

    Seeking or even demanding credit is the scarlet letter of the non-artistic. Which, is fine, it makes it easy to differentiate creative from artistic

  9. Gentlemen: If you think true “creators” and artists don't want credit, you're hopelessly naive. Why do you think artists and writers sign their creations. True creative people may not care about remuneration, but they certainly care about credit. Dave's a creative, which is why so many of you find him difficult; I managed a shop of creatives, and they are often moody. But they are also dreamers and visionaries, and the people who move things forward.

    • We had a monthly salon in Berkeley in the 90s, techies, writers, journalists and bloggers and plenty of artists. Every time, the artists would steer the discussion into “how do we make money doing this.” Of course they never did make money, but they wanted to talk about it. I think the sentiment is they were tired of people thinking they just did their work for love, they wanted to get paid too. Hopeless. Only very few artists get paid. So you make up for that by making sure you get the credit. Then along comes Wikipedia, and takes that away too.

    • I never said that artists and other creative people don't want credit — that's ridiculous. But there's a big difference between wanting it and “fiercely fighting” for it the way Dave suggests everyone should. That seems to involve turning everything into a vendetta, and people with different opinions into “accusers” who have to be confronted.

  10. some valid points raised in each, but there's too much mudslinging and too few substantive comments. not to allude that you do matthew, but some people really have developed a vendetta against dave.

    • webframp, I expect that's because Dave is a kind and gentle soul who treats others fairly and with respect.

  11. […] What’s wrong with Dave Winer – – mathewingram.com/work I never get tired of delusional Dave. (tags: winer whiner) […]

  12. “The whole point of the model is to find the middle ground, the common ground, the mutually agreed-upon version of events — not for people to pursue vendettas and confront their accusers.”

    …and that remains a problem.

    Facts are facts, and “consensus” is too often becoming a model for wishing away a conflict instead of resolving one. Are you going to have the moon-landing hoax people have their say on the Apollo page? Do the Flat-Earthers get equal time on the Plate Tectonics entry?

    I think I see exactly where Winer is coming from. (I don't know him, he doesn't know me. I don't care.) In this case, Wikipedia wants it both ways: they want the authority of a truly-vetted source, and the anonymity of those submitting. The vast majority of people reading Wikipedia never go to the discussion pages.

    Present the facts, and let the truth bear itself out. But “middle-ground” should not be the goal for a purported reference source. We might as well write tomorrow's history books to include such gems as “Saddam was involved in 9/11″ and “Bush lied to get oil.” Neither is true in any sense of the word, yet at times majorities of Americans believed them. That is where worshiping the Middle Ground leaves us.

  13. […] 반대: What’s wrong with Dave Winer […]

  14. In all of his bellyaching about how creators want credit, has Winer ever been a person to credit others for *their* accomplishments? I can't recall a single time where he mentioned that Ramanathan Guha and Dan Libby created RSS 0.90 at Netscape. His burning desire to see people rightfully credited extends only to himself.

  15. In all of his bellyaching about how creators want credit, has Winer ever been a person to credit others for *their* accomplishments? I can't recall a single time where he mentioned that Ramanathan Guha and Dan Libby created RSS 0.90 at Netscape. His burning desire to see people rightfully credited extends only to himself.

  16. […] against him and his accomplishments I felt the whiney line had been crossed for the last time. Now Mathew Ingram in his professional best wrote a post about what Dave had written, upon which Dave promptly jumped into the comments and called Mathew a […]

Comments are closed.