Origin of the wiki - time stamps

[Peter Damian]

I am doing some further work piecing together the history of the wiki prior to January 15th 2001, but I am not sure I understand pipermail and domain time stamps.

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:13:19 -0500 (EST)

Does this mean UTC 15:13, local time 10:13? Or is it local time 15:13, UTC 20:13.

Domain tools says that Wikipedia.com was created 2001-01-12T16:12:14-0800 . Again, what UTC time is that?

[Peter Damian]

Ah this explains ISO 8601 (whereas the Wikipedia article is confusing. The time shown is local time (not UTC) and the offset is the number of hours difference from UTC. If the number is negative, you add to the local time to get UTC, if positive, you subtract. How confusing.

And that’s significant, if I understand correctly. When placed in the correct order, it suggests only 9 minutes difference from Larry announcing (on a private list) that ‘we’ are going to register Wikipedia.com, and Wikipedia.com actually being set up. This was four hours after Jimmy said he wanted to register the wiki under a different domain in order to avoid ‘harm’ to Wikipedia.

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:13:19 -0500 (= 20:13 UTC) Jimmy states ‘in this case, I tend to side with the conservatives’, i.e. the wiki must be put under a separate domain to avoid ‘harm’ to Nupedia.

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:28:37 -0500 (= 24:13 UTC) Larry: Yes, we're going to register "wikipedia.com"’.

Wikipedia.com created 2001-01-12T16:12:14-0800 (= 24:22 UTC)

[Peter Damian]

How easy to get wrong. Starting again:

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:13:19 -0500 (= 20:13 UTC) Jimmy states ‘in this case, I tend to side with the conservatives’, i.e. the wiki must be put under a separate domain to avoid ‘harm’ to Nupedia.

Wikipedia.com created 2001-01-12T16:12:14-0800 (= 24:12 UTC)

Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:28:37 -0500 (= 24:28 UTC) Larry: Yes, we're going to register "wikipedia.com"’.

So in fact Larry's email was after the setting up of Wikipedia.com.

However it was Larry who on Thursday 11 Jan makes the first public mention of ‘Wikipedia’.

[Peter Damian]

And some extraordinary reactions on Jimbo's page. The most curious is by Francis Schonken.

Let’s not forget this.

[thekohser]

And some extraordinary reactions on Jimbo's page. The most curious is by Francis Schonken.

Peter, you know in a few days, that link will be useless?

[Peter Damian]

And some extraordinary reactions on Jimbo's page. The most curious is by Francis Schonken.

Peter, you know in a few days, that link will be useless?

Not entirely useless, as we have the date of my post, and we know it is Jimbo's talk page. If I provide a permalink, people will click on it and perhaps miss further items on the thread.

In any case, the most effective links are when the discussion is archived, but that hasn't happened yet.

[Peter Damian]

JoeSperrazza (T-C-L) calls me a 'troll', then 5 albert square (T-C-L) closes the discussion.

As Andreas says, the best reply to a fool is silence.

[The Adversary]

JoeSperrazza (T-C-L) calls me a 'troll', then 5 albert square (T-C-L) closes the discussion.

As Andreas says, the best reply to a fool is silence.

My own 1/2 cent: my wikilife on en.wp improved significantly when I "unwatched" Jimbo´s talk-page. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere on WP is the ratio braincells/sycophants worse.

For everyone who shows up on Jimbo´s talk-page possessing a braincell or two, there are 100 sycophants with sawdust between their ears.

[thekohser]

Now that you've called them "fools" here publicly, you're well on your way to getting banned again!

[Randy from Boise]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

[Vigilant]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

Hear, hear!

It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

[The Garbage Scow]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

Hear, hear!

It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

I wonder how long before someone steps in with "not here to build an encyclopedia" and drops teh banhammer? That's been all the rage the last 2-3 years.

[Vigilant]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

Hear, hear!

It is better to live on your feet than die on your knees.

I wonder how long before someone steps in with "not here to build an encyclopedia" and drops teh banhammer? That's been all the rage the last 2-3 years.

It's wikipediot for, "Y'all a long way from the city, now aintcha boy?

[Randy from Boise]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

You of course have free will to do that, but the end result is so predictable as if to appear the product of determinism.

RfB

[Peter Damian]

Now, now Greg — he intimated they were "fools" here and not there... And remember that truth is an absolute defense against libel...

Peter, you really do need to start building some political capital by editing if you want to be able to opine on controversial matters on-wiki without becoming Purina® Jackal Chow.™ Otherwise: make the controversial comments here, not there.

RfB

I am not working in any salt mine, thank you. I will say what I like.

You of course have free will to do that, but the end result is so predictable as if to appear the product of determinism.

RfB

I really couldn't give a f-ck. You are always going on about how wonderful Wikipedia is, I can't see how you can keep a straight face.

And look at the reversion here. Francis Schonken (who is he?) reverts "In January 2001, Sanger was introduced to the concept of a wiki by extreme programming enthusiast Ben Kovitz after explaining to Kovitz the slow pace of growth Nupedia endured as a result of its onerous submission process" with the comment "story line is: what happened, not who did it".

So you aren't allowed to mention the names of people who did things? But the 2002 timeline says "Jimmy Wales confirmed that Wikipedia would never run commercial advertising" e.g. This says both what happened (confirmation of never having advertising) and who confirmed it (Jimmy Wales). This makes no sense to me whatsoever. History is a mixture of both things that happened, and who did them. In fact, most things are done by people, no?

[thekohser]

And look at the reversion here. Francis Schonken (who is he?)

I think he's a scumbag, and I don't even know the guy.

[eagle]

For the record, the Jimbo Talk Page discussion has been archieved at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... adio_Times