Nothing to this story, really; Julia wasn't nutty enough to be good in the sack- so I moved on. Trust me, I have an eye for these things.

Yes, why would a known perv have any personal interest in sorting through photos of a nice piece of ass?

(My "when hell freezes over" chances with Julia are soooo over after this comment)

Rachel Marsden has an freakishly large head. I wonder if it's hard for her to buy hats.

@Fake Jimbo Wales: I know the girl for you. Best part: she's 16, so you'll make Scoble jealous.

Boy this guy really is quite the dirt bag. Maybe one day he will get smart and realize that he had a good woman. He'll be kicking himself for what he lost.

@bugz321: If Marsden has "extra" head, does that mean she has a penchant for giving more?

here we go again.... hey jimmy.. wikipedia is not ur personal dating site.. find a new way of meeting chicks.

Julia Allison's Wikipedia "bio", like so many Wikipedia articles involving living people, was abominable. Jimmy and I discussed Julia's "bio", among others'.

The only thing wrong with this picture is that Jimmy hasn't intervened with MORE people's Wikipedia entries.

Newsflash: Wikipedia doesn't get things right "magically", through the "wisdom of the masses", or some such BS. Anyone who believes that probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy. "Regular" people who try to make changes will see their contributions overturned on a dime by someone who's (a) obsessed with the subject, and (b) has almighty Wikipedia "admin" powers to lock, block, revert, etc.

Wikipedia works about as well as any other communist/socialist entity: People think they have some semblance of control, but it's really just an illusion for all the plebes. In reality, power and control is in the hands of a few - and if they don't like you, or your politics, then you're screwed.

Lest there be any confusion, I have always been very open with Jimmy (despite my personal feelings for him, which are VERY separate from anything I feel about Wikipedia, and shall remain private) in that I have no use for Wikipedia, have always considered it glorified graffiti board that does far more harm than good in the world, and hope it burns in a fiery hell.

And this, from a populist.

Why does Rachel Marsden and Julia Allison even have a Wikipedia entry?

Does anyone outside of the Web 2.0 circle jerk even know who these people are?

@Hot Foot: Precisely. We shouldn't. People have seen fit to include us because they dislike us, and use Wikipedia as a means of taking out their frustrations.

As for the amusing Wikipedia "we only use reliable sources" line, er, how about the actual SUBJECT of the article as a "reliable source"?

Another problem with the Wikipedia model: They rely solely on information in newspapers (even if it has been retracted) as their source of information. That would be great if people actually cooperated with, or spoke with, the media about themselves. In my case, I never do. I'm far too private a person. So, as a result, about 10% of my life is actually covered in a so-called "biography" of me on Wikipedia. Because that's all that's been in the media.

Pathetic, really.

@Rachel Marsen - my first reaction to your opinion that wikipedia causes more harm than good was simply one of shock. Surely you must realize the number of lives caused harm is much smaller than the number of lives who will never be harmed and who now have this incredible tool to use.

Re: the policy about relying on newspaper information - has a market risen for some publication to allow you to pay for the service of publishing your information?

I'm sure you could pay some awful paper to print whatever you want to end up on your wikipedia entry. Tabloids are much worse than wikipedia for this very reason. I have no idea if Dr. Phil is actually having a divorce, but that topic will sell their paper, along with a ton of other potential half truths.

While I agree that Wikipedia's fetish for newspapers as the source for information is wrong, I don't think someone who is "far too private a person" would leak IM transcripts to vallywag and put her ex-boyfriend's clothes up for sale on ebay (or keep commenting on so many items about him for that matter).

@tigerbeat: Look, dear, when someone threatens your livelihood, then breaks up with you via one of the world's most trafficked websites, you play the hand you're dealt.

i guess if you are not engaging in raunchy chat with Jimmy Wales =plebe ??

@tigerbeat: Listen, dear. When someone threatens a person's livelihood, then subsequently breaks up with them via an annoucement to the world on Wikipedia, you play the hand you've been dealt. That said, human beings make mistakes. Life goes on. Hopefully lessons are learned. And NOT clarifying or responding directly to any related information or speculation on a site such as this isn't really an option - unless a person prefers to sit back and allow themselves and those close to them to be baselessly trashed, as is permitted to happen on sites like Wikipedia and elsewhere.

@SethinSD: How about we get the "little black kids in Africa" some, oh I don't know, perhaps some RUNNING WATER, and maybe some vaccinations, before we start focusing like uneducated, naive idiots on the fact that they don't have access to the "world's largest compendium of pickup lines"? Mommy's dying of malaria in the corner of the hut, but HEY life's fabulous because I can read all about how John Seigenthaler killed Kennedy on a computer whose screen I can't see because I have no electricity! Wheeeee! Sadly, like so many Wikipidiots, you're about as misinformed on the realities of the Third World as you are on the realities of the media and the preposterous notion that I could "pay the media to write whatever I want them to about my life so it could end up on Wikipedia in the way that I want it."

FACT: There is nothing Wikipedia provides that Google doesn't. Wikipedia is just a Google result aggregator, with some (oft libelous) commentary thrown in. Wikipedia is a rash on the ass of the world, to paraphrase the Big Lebowski.

@Hot Foot: -

"Does anyone outside of the Web 2.0 circle jerk even know who these people are?"

Thank God that the Web 2.0 circle jerk has an even smaller subset that knows who they are (and not!!). Outside of Gawker, I think you will find many confused looks when you mention JA.

@Rachel Marsden: I really think you are letting your emotions and desire for revenge to cloud your judgment. In my opinion you should direct your hate towards the man, not the tool. If it weren't wikipedia, it seems like he may as well have broken up with you via livejournal, blogspot, wordpress, etc etc etc.
Wikipedia is a valuable tool. There are always stories about certain kids that read Encyclopedias back to back. Fortunately Wikipedia by way of links makes that process actually fun, and there are many many people that are being educated as to how to do the things you suggested were important such as providing running water, vaccinations, etc.

See [en.wikipedia.org]
. Hell even just searching 'Water; leads to irrigation and all kinds of things that are good for the world.

Just because you're focused on the negative aspects of wikipedia does not mean others are.

Just because someone can kill a man with a hammer does not make that tool bad.

@SethinSD: Interesting points. Too bad they're wrong. Wikipedia offers nothing more than what Google already does - except more organized and focused libel. Period. That's not even opinion, it's fact.

@SethinSD: Frankly, I really don't understand the fuss some people make over Wikipedia. It's no more a "tool" than this chat board here on Valleywag. Google, on the other hand, is indeed a tool.

Wikipedia is doom for people like Marsden and Allison, who have accomplished little-to-nothing and subsist on generating their own press as "pundits" of some sort or another.

The gulf between the amount of fame and the amount of meaningful accomplishment means that most people ignore them, while the strangers that do know or care about them generally have negative opinions about them and I imagine obsessively edit their pages.

Related to Marsden and Allison: when I see a self-promoter create a wikipedia page -- you come across them from time to time -- the first thing I want to say is "you don't want that." Every such page immediately becomes a magnet for cranks and debunkers. Wikipedia generates not fame but controversy for these types, and is a good counterexample to "all press is good press."

Contrast with someone who's earned fame through something they've done -- enough "neutral" types know about them and care that they clean out the garbage.

@higgs_bosom: Sorry to burst your bubble dear, but I'm the exact opposite of a "self-promoter". I simply to the minimum amount possible, in that regard, to sustain a career in politics and media. Which is why 90% of my life and career aren't covered in the press, and therefore aren't in Wikipedia. I simply don't feel the need to broadcast to the world what I do in my life and work. And FYI, neither myself nor Julia Allison created, or wanted, pages on Wikipedia.

@Rachel Marsden: it's the gulf between your accomplishments (low; pundit on Fox News?) and your fame that causes the problem. Nobel prizewinners (high accomplishment, low fame) don't have problems with their entries, nor do presidential candidates (high accomplishment, high fame.) The problem is that nobody really cares about you except for the obsessives.

@higgs_bosom: Sweetie pie, my "accomplishments" are none of your business - nor any of Wikipedia's, for that matter. The very few which have made their way on there, I'd rather have removed - along with the rest of the garbage on there. If you think the be-all and end-all of my life amounts to the 3 or 4 people I've dated, as chronicled in great detail on Wikipedia, and a few months as a talking head on Fox News, I pity your obviously warped sense of reality.

Really, people have no idea how tedious and exhausting it is to be considered so bloody fascinating, thorougly against my own will and desire. 'Tis the cross I bear.

Julia Allison? Jimmy banged her.

Ass, Gas or Grass, Jimmy don't do edits for free.

@Rachel Marsden: well, yes, that's my point. I think wikipedia would do better to have requirements for article subjects "higher" than they currently do. I have no idea who you are and would not in the ordinary course of things look you up on wikipedia -- but that's just the problem because I'm reasonably neutral. The good articles in wikipedia, the ones that have value, are those about subjects non-obsessive people would be interested in from time to time, and those are the ones that remain free of garbage.

@Troll_2.0: That's not only crass and offensive to all parties involved, but it's flat out wrong. @higgs_bottom: Well, at least we agree on that. :) I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm nowhere near important enough to merit inclusion in any "encyclopedia", let alone a fake one.

@Rachel Marsden: wikipedia is slowly getting a handle on the problem. For example, new policy on deleting biographies is to give a lot of weight to the subject's desire; even if the biography "passes" standard notability tests, if the subject wants it gone it can tip the scales to a certain extent.

You seem to be unfortunately in a bit of an "uncanny valley." You've published and pundited enough to be notable for the wikipedians who hang out on AfD (deletion discussions), but not enough for non-crazy people to care about the article.

If you reach Ann Coulter status my guess would be that all of the personal stuff would gradually "fade out" of the article as ordinary people would be like "why do I care about this random court case and minor legal trouble."

In the meantime, I don't know what to suggest. The stuff in the article seems like it has massive "undue weight" problems as it stands, and I don't know how it's still there. Looking through the discussion pages, it seems I'm not the only person who thinks that. I'll take a look.

When one depends on the commons for insight, one shouldn't complain about the commonness of the insight. Tom Sawyer didn't care that much about the fence paint job, only that other people painted it.

@higgs_bosom: Er, Ann Coulter (a good friend) hates Wikipedia as much as I do - as has had just as many problems with it. So no, the problem doesn't just magically disappear when you write 6 bestselling books. I've personally published more than enough (ie. 6 years worth of political columns), and have appeared on TV and radio enough (my own weekly terrestrial radio show, plus hundreds of TV appearances) for people to parse. They simply choose not to, as the focus of Wikipedia is - let's face it - not information, but rather libeling people one dislikes. The evidence bears that out. This may not have been the original THEORY or intent of the site - in fact, I'm certain that it wasn't - but it is, in effect, the net result.

I think Jimmy had a good idea, in theory, at the outset. However, with poor leadership and management, and a whole First World full of assholes, that vision fell apart. It's unfortunate, really.

@Rachel Marsden: well, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

For example, I checked the Coulter biography and it does cover some things that might embarrass (? -- not sure) the woman, but they are directly relevant to her notability as a pundit. I'd consider it a pretty model article, actually.

Coulter's article attracts obsessives, but also enough ordinary people that things stay reasonably calm and "on topic". As I said, I imagine the irrelevant and gossipy material on your page will disappear as you become more famous (if that is your goal -- you seem conflicted on the issue.)

Incidentally, it shouldn't be surprising really that "non-crazies" (as you so aptly describe them) wouldn't "care" about my Wikipedia article. Generally, we "non-crazies" don't care about Wikipedia, period. It's a non-factor in our lives - even as a journalist and researcher, I ignored it - until we find the kind of garbage that we do, on this Wikipedia page about ourselves, at the top of Google search results.

If Larry and Sergey had any sense (and I would trust that they do), they'd tweak the Google algorithm to dump the Wikipedia results on any topic to the bottom of the pile where they belong.

@higgs_bosom: Ann, like the rest of us, has had ongoing problems with the Wikipedia article about her. It's an ongoing battle. But really, it shouldn't be. However, the nature of Wikipedia is such that as long as these pages about people exist, the problem will never, ever be rectified completely. It should really be a person's choice as to whether they want to keep fighting that battle, or simply opt out of being written about on the Wikipedia "web forum" (it's a real stretch to call it an "encyclopedia", although it has been effective marketing/spin).

To respond to your other point: I have no interest in "becoming more famous", or in "being famous" at all, for that matter. If I wanted that, there would be much more efficient ways to go about it. I do not seek fame or notoriety. Never have. My interest, from a media and political standpoint, is in contributing to the public debate surrounding various ideas, and hoping that perhaps I'm able to get people to think about issues in such a way that they maybe haven't before.

@Rachel Marsden:

Being PC ain't my bag.

@higgs_bosom: If Wikipedia is indeed considering an opt-out policy for living people of marginal notability (such as myself) who wish to maintain their personal privacy, that would certainly be a hugely positive (and long overdue) step.

@Rachel Marsden: Rachel! You sold Jimbo Wales's dirty shorts on ebay! You said an ex was leaking anti-terror secrets! This is not really "laying low" and "avoiding notoriety". I don't think it should be covered by wikipedia, but you're hardly helping matters.

@Troll_2.0: I'm hardly PC myself, but I try to at least keep the facts as the basis of my rants straight. :)

@higgs_bosom: As I've said before, you play the cards your dealt. If someone wants to make trouble for me publicly, I have little choice but to respond publicly. My preference is for privacy, as demonstrated by the fact that 99% of my dating life and 90% of my career is nowhere to be found online - anywhere.

@Rachel Marsden: Here is something relevant on BLP: WP:BLP. I actually thought the policy was more formal than that. Anyway, because of your publications and punditry, my guess is that you really are in the valley I mentioned and that this won't help much.

@Rachel Marsden: Yes, but you're noteworthy because you've been involved in multiple awkward scandals. Between ruining someones career and subsequently stalking them after falsely claiming you suffered sexual harassment, to stalking the person who helped you claim that you were sexually harassed, to stalking a friend of the person who supposedly sexually harassed you, to stalking a leo, to being escorted from Fox News after being shitcanned from the worst show on all of cable news, to stalking Jimmy Wales. For what it's worth, I really hope you'll finally come full circle on the mental breakdown and kill this one, instead of finding another stalking target and killing that one instead.

This all interests me, and as a user that's really all Wikipedia needs to justify itself. Ann Coulter has said stupid shit, and it's harder to come down firmly one way or the other when it's just words, but you've actually done documented, legal-proceeding related stupid shit.

These are all things that are in the public domain, and all Wikipedia has done is aggregate it. I'm not sure what you're bitching about. You want to be a pundit, but you don't want coverage? All press is good press, after all.

@Dweezil: Dear, your problem is that you read Wikipedia and other garbage - and then actually believe it. My con