Talk:Larry Sanger

Sanger's Message to the FBI

Sanger's Message to the FBI should be covered here. -- samj _in^out 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that a reliable source? QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

There's an extensive article in The Register -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a sense of how reliable and widely read the register is? (i read it occasionally, but being a goober who spends too much time reading wikipedia, etc im too close to it). i think this letter deserves at least a brief mention, but to what degree? i would prefer to wait until the letter is picked up for reporting by agencies outside this somewhat narrow world of tech/web talk, before expanding any mention significantly. NPOV and undue weight are big concerns here. i know its discussed at slashdot, and was in googles news aggregate, but i dont think thats enough at all right now.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has just hit the front page of the BBC News site. (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm) As that is very much mainstream news, I suggest we need to add a section regarding the issue.--58.178.105.174 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now i totally support mentioning it here. i probably wont add the editions myself, and i will watch them to see if they are NPOV and of due weight, but please, anyone, go ahead.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is mostly about Wales not Sanger. Do you support mentioning it in the Jimmy Wales page. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

This information is about criticism and is in the criticism article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good observation. I also agree that we should have a minimal mention across WP, having it in the criticism article is probably enough, in addition to here, until we have more sources. I would be open to limiting it to criticism of WP if other people feel strongly that this violates undue weight, esp. until we have more refs.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference format

This edit changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Wikipedia are not formatted this way. I prefer reference formatting in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LDR. Most articles aren't formatted the new way because it was only introduced six months ago, but it's the Next Big Thing and will probably be made the only way at some point. (Personally, I loathe LDR and think it's a pointless overcomplication, but that's just me.) – iridescent 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see where it says references must be formatted this more difficult way. QuackGuru (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no "must", and I'll fight tooth-and-nail against anyone who tries to make them so (see my thoughts on the matter here—I think it's arguably the stupidest idea ever implemented on this site). But they are, sadly, a legitimate format, and if there's a consensus in favour of them on the article (note the "if") they probably ought to be changed. – iridescent 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am having problems with the new formatting. Trying to find the reference is difficult. Trying to find a specific reference by clicking on the reference section is very difficult. If a reference needs to be updated it will be very difficult to make minor changes to the reference becuase you will have to locate it first. I don't see consensus for this article for the changes. QuackGuru (talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Deconstructing Wikipedia" - profile

Good potential source - "Deconstructing Wikipedia" - Feature Story Reed magazine June 2010 "Larry Sanger ’91 launched a revolution. Why does he want to start over?" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

For several months, Seigenthaler’s biographical entry on Wikipedia had made the outrageous claim that he was complicit in the assassination of both John F. and Robert F. Kennedy, a particularly spiteful defamation because he had in fact been one of Robert Kennedy’s pallbearers. Because Wikipedia contributors are anonymous, Seigenthaler had no way of tracing the author—but he was able to track down the original architects of the system, which is why he was calling Sanger.

The criticism stung, but Sanger hoped that the incident would push Wikipedia to confront its problems—problems he had been warning about for years. Instead, the Wikipedia community responded with a collective shrug. “What no one would admit was that the episode suggested something wrong with the basic model that Wikipedia operates under,” he says.

Sanger had always been proud of his creation. Now, however, he was beginning to fear that it suffered from a fundamental flaw.

Here are the main points from the Reed source. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy keep

This was correct, Sanger should probably be blocked if he hasn't already been so if its true re his legal threats but that is no reason to delete the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Failed verification

I removed text that failed V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out which words of that fairly short sentence you thought were unsupported by the multiple sources offered? The content is certainly worth inclusion. Rvcx (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

What I removed was unsourced. You could not provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Child porn report section

QuackGuru (talk removed this referenced item which had four references and has received massive publicity. This was just a two sentence item buried in the article and hardly undue weight (and I actually thought it was written in a sympathetic tone telling his side and none of the fall out). I'm not sure why it would draw the ire of Quack or even Sanger. Americasroof (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Restored that sentence. The sentence is a neutral report of a well-sourced and notable incident; I certainly think think content meets WP:BLP standards. And the notion that a single sentence on an incident that's drawn so much attention is WP:UNDUE borders on the absurd. Rvcx (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is misleading without the clarification and it is criticism that is in the Criticism article. See WP:WEIGHT. The Sott.net is an unreliable source. This is libel. See WP:BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Link seems broken, but i agree, we need to be very strict here about reliable sources, and how we summarize in the article from these sources. this source is out. If the foxnews and the tech articles are in conflict, we may have very little to source from reliably. I like how the article content is extremely limited, not getting into the back and forth. I like that for now, until we have truly reliable sources reporting on this in detail.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You do not agree that misleading text without the clarification is a BLP violation? QuackGuru (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)