Talk:Larry Sanger

Co-founder dispute

"best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" That's patently nonsense. He is the co-founder. The weasel words are nonsensical. For a controversial article citations definitely belong in the lede. Replacing sourced content with unsourced or not verifiable content confirms citations are best for the lede for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Best known for" is not in of itself a weasel word (see WP:BKFIP, etc.), and I do not dispute that he is in fact the co-founder of Wikipedia (nor does anybody other than Jimbo, if I'm not mistaken.) I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I'm trying to streamline the lead to be less cluttered and more encyclopedic (with the ultimate aim of taking this to WP:FAC, a process Sanger founded). You're right that WP:LEADCITE doesn't outright prohibit citations in the lead, but they're unnecessary in this article IMO, and LEADCITE notes that Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I left the citations for stuff like his pronunciation which are not covered in the lead, but I don't think the rest are necessary, given that Sanger isn't that controversial outside of Wikipedia, and I attempted to address intra-Wikipedia controversy in the lead. My statements were only reworded versions of those already in the lead, which should have already been in the body. here is my version of the lead for reference when consensus wants to develop. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The citation does not verify "best known for being". The wording does dispute whether Sanger is the co-founder. Please do not add content that is not verifiable. When an editor adds content that fails verification that means citations should stay in the lede. Please don't bring up the co-founder dispute to Wikipedia articles. Please don't try to gain consensus for disputing Sanger is the co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not agree that "best known for" casts doubt onto his being the co-founder, as it's not something to the effect of "who claims to be", "alleged", etc. However, you do have a point that it might be otherwise problematic with verification. Would you be willing to accept the rest of my work on the lead if I reword it to remove that phrase? If not I can ask for a third opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You have shown citations are needed. Please do not remove citations from this lede, especially when you are replacing sourced content with misleading and bias content against a living person. I can't easily check verification without the citations remaining in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking if something is in the lead it should already be in the body. You can check for verification there, therefore lead citations are generally an unnecessary clutter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See "In addition to his work on Wikipedia..." The source that was close by did not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That is a transition in prose that does not need a citation per WP:SKYBLUE, IMO. I see we are at a bit of an impasse here, so I have sought a third opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See again "In addition to his work on Wikipedia..." The source that was close by did not verify this part. You did not acknowledge you added unsourced content. There is a lot more unsourced new content. See "Interested in online learning early on...". No source verifies this claim.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_underkill#Citations_in_the_lead

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_most_sentences_should_be_cited

How come you are replacing sourced content with content that is not verifiable with any source? I can't check for verification anywhere when you are adding new content without a citation. Do you agree you won't add new content that is unsourced? QuackGuru (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I was only trying to reword content that was already in the body, I apologize if I inadvertently introduced anything new. Let's see how the third opinion goes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The more I look the more problems I found. See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia..." That is bias and misleading. There was an inaccurate statement about child pornography added to the lede. That was disgusting.

You added new content. That was not done inadvertently. Above you wrote "That is a transition in prose that does not need a citation per WP:SKYBLUE, IMO." That confirms it was not done inadvertently. You did not provide verification for the new content. What source verifies the new content or what it per WP:SKYBLUE? Please address the question. Do you agree you won't add new content that is unsourced? QuackGuru (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The lengths to which you have gone to "prove" that I did such actions deliberately lead me to longer be able to assume the assumption of good faith on your part. Per Bastun I have attempted to make a compromise in the lead, changing only the first sentences. If you see any necessary changes in formatting feel free to make them yourself, but please do not revert or undo this change. Please bring up any lingering big issues on this talk page, the edit-warring noticeboard, or the dispute resolution noticeboard.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

What an odd dispute - "best known as co-founder of Wikipedia" is a) accurate, and b) in no way a challenge to the fact that he co-founded Wikipedia. Odd edit summaries, too - what BLP was "re-inserted" and fixed by you removing a space from a reference name? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The source in the lede does not verify "best known for being" or "best known as". This strengths the need for citations in the lede when verification is not being presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to rehash the arguments already made. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please provide verification using the citations in the lede to support your arguments. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've declined QuackGuru's full protection request. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Airplaneman, do you think contacting the WMF would help? This should not happening on this article given the high profile nature. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which is not the purview of the WMF. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

See this diff. He is not currently an "American epistemologist". Please read the archives. This was discussed before. The part "best known for being" not supported by the citations in the body. He may be *best known* for being a critic of Wikipedia. The part "educational websites such as" is misleading. The other websites are not described as educational websites. The part "such as" does not make much sense. Given this is a live article the changes should not stay in the article. The lede says "He is the former editor-in-chief of Nupedia,[9]" In September 2017, it was announced that Sanger had joined Everipedia as chief information officer.[20][21] Adding Nupedia and Everipedia to the first paragraph is duplication. The citation did not verify Everipedia in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) since a third opinion was given by Bastun after the filing of that request. Bastun's opinion can either be seen as a Third Opinion or a third editor entering the dispute (and Third Opinions are only available in disputes between exactly two editors). If addition moderated content dispute resolution is desired, consider making a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a Request for Comments after, in either case, carefully reading the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

• An edit-war discussion is underway regarding the contents of this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
• I became aware of this page due to its listing on WP:3O. I don't want to wade into the edit war dispute; I am not planning to touch the article in any way, but from a content dispute perspective, I was hoping that perhaps another voice might help add a little clarity. My opinion is that I agree with Bastun; I certainly did not read the lead as somehow lessening Mr. Sanger's status as co-founder of Wikipedia. In fact, we state so clearly in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to a third party ("so-and-so source claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia"). We use this construct all the time: for example, Cary Elwes is best known for his roles as Westley in The Princess Bride, Robin Hood in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. In my personal opinion, this wording does not imply in the least that there is any doubt that he appeared in both movies as the respective characters, but only that he is potentially known for other, ostensibly lesser accomplishments as well. There certainly is no disrespect intended by saying so, and I don't think we are doing Mr. Sanger a disservice by stating it in those terms. I suppose you could argue that we are merely assuming that he is "best known" for that particular accomplishment, but it is certainly a common way of saying "this is what Wikipedia thinks his most important accomplishment is". One could possibly consider that WP:OR, but then again, if we were to simply state "Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia" as the first sentence of the lead, I think we are making the exact same statement. All the "best known for" does in this instance is clarify that there are other things he might also be known for that aren't mentioned in the first sentence. I hope this helps.
  For what it's worth, Googling "Larry Sanger" "wikipedia" "co-founder" yields about 4 times the results that "Larry Sanger" "wikipedia" "critic" does. Again, this is hardly statistically valid, but it's at least nominal verification that we aren't completely out in left field. In fact, most of the spot-checking I did when I ran the second query had Mr. Sanger being introduced, often in the title of the article, as "Co-Founder Larry Sanger". CThomas³ (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He is not currently an epistemologist. The last sentence of the first paragraph covers the epistemologist part. Sanger complained about similar content in the first sentence way back in 2008. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia, Citizendium, and Everipedia." is also problematic. They are not educational websites. He founded Citizendium. This was deleted. The previous wording was far better. QuackGuru (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede is in very poor shape, especially the first sentence. There is way too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Best known for

Can we focus on diff which adds "best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" to the lead. I know #Co-founder dispute deals with the topic, but that section is a lost cause as it tries to cover other points as well, and it got off to a bad start with QG's hard-to-understand claims about weasel words and a suggestion that "best known for" somehow casts doubt on whether "co-founder" is correct (QG: both those points are wrong).

Problems:

1. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, and the article does not say anything about "best known".
2. While editors on this page might regard Sanger as best known for his role in Wikipedia, I doubt whether more than a tiny number of editors, and almost none of Wikipedia's readers, would recognize Sanger's name.
3. What does "best known" add to the article? Just assert that he co-founded Wikipedia and leave readers to decide whether that is significant.
4. Assertions must be verifiable, and particularly must be referenced when challenged. The exceptions are WP:CALC which does not apply, and WP:BLUESKY mentioned above. BLUESKY is an essay which does not overrule the WP:BURDEN policy. BLUESKY states that not everything needs a citation, which is reasonable. However, the "best known" claim is an editor's opinion which may not be shared by people familiar with Sanger's other work.

I think "best known for" was first added on 27 June 2019—I don't remember seeing it in this article before. Why should it be kept? Assertions are never kept on the basis of original research using Google or anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm fine with whatever consensus we develop with regards to the "best known for" phrase, provided that it's civil and not edit-warring (speaking of which, I'll hold back on editing the lead myself until the WP:ANEW thread is dealt with). I would tend to support its inclusion if we can find a source to support it. If we can't, I'll see how else I can reword it without the phrase; "Lawrence Mark Sanger ... is an American epistemologist and internet project developer who co-founded Wikipedia."? That could work if we can't find a source for "best-known", but it just doesn't seem as engaging to me. (Then again, Wikipedia's not an action novel, so we shouldn't be sacrificing truth and verifiability for pizzazz.) EDIT: How about "Lawrence Mark Sanger ... is an American epistemologist and internet project developer. Along with Jimmy Wales he co-founded the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."? It would also make who the other co-founder was clearer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to mention Wales in the lead. This is an article about Sanger and what he did, and the lead should focus on that. Also, mentioning Wales introduces the founder drama, but the lead should not focus on that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • That's fair enough. I think there should be a section on the founder drama (and there already is under "Origins of Wikipedia" if I'm not mistaken), but there's no reason to bring it up in the lead, especially if this is to become an FAC as I would like it to be someday. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No broad consensus for mass changes

Mass changes were made and almost all the citations were removed from the lede. Undoing years of consensus requires a RfC to gain broad support for such changes IMO. The lede was 4 solid paragraphs. 4 smaller paragraphs overall is not much content. The previous wording in the lede was well written and flowed better. For example, "Since his departure from Wikipedia he has been critical of the project, arguing that despite its merits Wikipedia lacks credibility due to a lack of respect for expertise and authority." This is not neutrally written. See "Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project.[15][16] He states that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise.[17]" This is better written without the use of the word "arguing". There are a lot more problems with the changes to the lede. See "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia..." That is more bias content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the changes seem fine to me and there is little difference between the two sentences you quote - I'm not seeing any bias in either. I don't see a problem with "arguing." It means "to advance an argument", in this context. Maybe also have a read of WP:OWN? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

See WP:SAID. The word "states" is neutral. I disagree with replacing sourced content with misleading content while also removing the citations to verify each claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No RfC is required. John M Wolfson's changes are reasonable and give a more readable lead to the article. See WP:LEADCITE - everything there is referenced later on in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede was less readable and deleted a lot of good content. Undoing over a decade of consensus requires broad consensus.

See MOS:CITELEAD: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Misleading content was not supported by the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Bastun here. Everything in the lead is cited in the body except for the pronunciation, whose citation I kept. Per LEADCITE, citations in the lead that are repeated in the body are unnecessary, and it is standard practice in featured articles to not have them. If there's anything that is particularly controversial in the new lead such that it requires citation feel free to add one, but please stop reverting the changes in their entirety. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't verify new content that is not in the body. For example, "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college,.." I could not verify it because there was no citation. The previous wording was far better and cited. If you started a RfC that would help revolve things. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I specifically left a comment in the source code noting where in the body you could find it. I don't think an RfC is necessary, I think this talk page is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I know. "Described in "Early life and education" section in body" did not verify the claim. I can't find any citation to verify the poorly written content. The readers will have a tougher time trying to verify content that may or may not be verifiable. This discussion shows citations are useful in the lede of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily, what it shows right now is that you think that lead citations are necessary or even desirable. The comment was sufficient (and I would argue more than enough) to direct where in the body a reader could verify the claim summarized in the lead. I feel like I've said all I've needed to say, so I'll recuse myself from this discussion for now and let others weigh in, and I suggest you do the same. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't verify misleading content or worse failed verification content, especially when there is no citations. You still have not verified the claim. If a RfC is started I can show even more problems. Content I add is challenged all the time on other articles. I have no problem providing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not adding new content, nor is the lead generally the place to add new content. I'm bringing the lead closer to FA standards by making it a summary of the body rather than a place where new content is introduced and cited. With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand that the lead is not (merely) an introduction to the subject but a summary of the article's body. Therefore, content that's not in the body generally shouldn't be put in the lead and the lead therefore generally doesn't need citations. The lead as I have most recently made it does not IMO contain anything so controversial as to circumvent this, and if it did you could just add the citations as they come without reverting the entirety of the change. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You rewrote over well written content. Sanger's role was downplayed with the rewritten content. A lot of the content added to the lede I could not verify. The content was oversimplified and vague. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Maybe you could have belter luck at the simple version of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

He rewrote content, more clearly. Sanger's role was not downplayed with the more clear content. The content read like that of many other good and featured articles, being a summary of the article. Slow growth of Nupedia? Not relevant for the lead. There is no need for thinly veiled personal attacks. WP:CITELEAD is clear "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." A bio about Larry Sanger is not complex. It's also not especially "current" and no longer controversial. Nobody is "undoing years of consensus" and to suggest they are is... well, seriously, read WP:OWN. Reverting. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "Slow growth of Nupedia? Not relevant for the lead." But you restored the part about "Slow progress of Nupedia." There is disputed content I mentioned above that is not verifiable. Content was challenged but verification was not provided. Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored. Vague content is not a clearer version. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You've been Reverted. Let's Discuss, per WP:BRD, and not just re-revert? What I meant above was the extra detail about Nupedia was not relevant for the lead. "Disappointed in the slow progress of Nupedia he suggested a wiki to solicit and receive articles to put through Nupedia's peer-review process, which led to the development and launch of Wikipedia in 2001." - 1.5 lines - is clear, concise, and an excellent summary of the later content. Certainly compared to the 2 lines it replaced. "Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored." Agreed. It isn't John M Wolfson's content that's poorly written, though, and there is nothing "vague" about it. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version. All I see above is an argument about verification and vague claims concerning "more clearly". What is more clear? You reverted to a version with "internet encyclopedia Wikipedia" in the first sentence. Do you really think someone reading this article would need that description? Regardless, it's standard to leave linked names on the understanding that the perplexed reader can click the link if they need clarification. Above you say "Slow growth of Nupedia" is not relevant for the lead, yet your revision includes "slow progress of Nupedia". The new version has "He began to be distanced" which is fluff for the lead, and is a total mistatement of the article which says "Sanger began to distance himself from it". Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than have one longer line it has 2 shorter lines. The part "Initially it was a complementary project" shows at the very beginning it was not intended to replace Nupedia. Not only this version is vague it is poorly written. For example, see "He founded Citizendium in 2006 to rival Wikipedia." That is patently nonsense. Sanger did not start another encyclopedia to "rival" Wikipedia. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia,..." That is more false information. Those are not educational websites. "He currently serves as Chief Information Officer of Everipedia." is not accurate. There is no date and we don't know if he is "currently" serving as CIO. The previous version has the correct date in "December" in the lede and body. The current version has false information when it was announced. "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is more false information. It claims he distanced himself from the community. This is more vague and misleading content. "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." This seems like a SYN violation or is OR research. It is not supported by the body that he joined Neupdia because he had an interest in using the internet for education during college. "Outside of the internet Sanger's interests have been focused mainly on philosophy,..." This is more false information. I can't find anywhere in the body where it supports he focused "mainly" on philosophy outside of his interest in the internet. It is misleading to claim he "suggested" a wiki when he did propose a wiki. This is casting doubt on Sanger co-founding Wikipedia. The lede is misrepresenting sources and is clearly bias. QuackGuru (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit does not fix the problems. "He began to distance himself from Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is still misleading because it is vague. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

• Johnuniq et al., the old lead was not what a lead is supposed to be on a Wikipedia article. The lead is not an "introduction" to the topic so much as it's a summary of the contents of the article's body. As a summary, it is supposed to be written more generally than the body, which is where the whole "vague" business comes into play. No new content is supposed to be present in the lead, and therefore there aren't supposed to be (that many) citations; indeed, looking through the past couple of TFA's it is shown that it is standard practice for featured articles to have rather few citations in their leads, or even none at all. Any worthwhile content in the lead I moved to the body. My proposed changes are only a start, and I am more than open to changes in wording to make it less "vague" while still being more general, but I do not care for being reverted at all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You did not address the problems. There is misleading and bias content in the lede that is not being fixed. This is strange wording. This is misleading to claim "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia." The way to fix it is to go back to the version where there is no perceived problems. You wrote, "My proposed changes are only a start,..." Articlespace is not for a start. There is a problem with removing the citations. I tried to verify some of the content but I eventually came to the conclusion that is not verifiable with any source in the body. This shows that for this article citations are important for the lede. There is no reason I can think of to keep misleading content in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Your assertion that Articlespace is not for a start runs aground WP:BOLD and WP:FINISH. I perceive the problem of redundancy and irrelevant little materials such as "He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska" in the old lead, so the the version where there is no perceived problems doesn't exist, and even if it did reverting would only exacerbate the edit war and not be constructive, so the proper thing to do is to discuss the lead and do incremental changes as we are doing now. That said, I'm open to changing the lead incrementally per your suggestions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • You still have not addressed the problems. Therefore, there is no consensus for the new version.
      • "He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska" is a summary of the body. See Larry_Sanger#Early_life_and_education. That's not a problem. Other articles state similar content in the lede. For example, see He grew up in the Flint, Michigan area.... The content with the new version is vague. For example, see "He left the project in 2002." That does not explain anything to our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Feel free to propose any changes that you think would solve whatever problems you think currently exist, provided that they a) Do not put citations in the lead, and b) Do not entirely undo what I have done. Also, FYI, Kyle Kuzma is not a featured article or even a good article, so I'd rather not use it as an example as to what to do to get this page ultimately promoted to featured status. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
          • See "Born in Paris and brought up in Oxfordshire, Watson attended the Dragon School...". Emma Watson is a featured article with citations in the lede.
          • Please address the issues rather than avoid them. The way to fix the problems is to go back to the version *before* the problems were introduced. When sourced content is being replaced with problematic content there is a need for citations in the lede for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you ignore BRD, revert while there's discussion ongoing, then issue me a templated warning?! Get real. You do not own this article, stop trying to act like its gatekeeper. And consider this your own edit-warring notice. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please try focus on the issues rather than comment on the contributor. Are you going to address the concerns? QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The "concerns" you list are entirely your own opinion, and ones I do not agree with. Do you know how many bio articles have a formula of words such as "X is currently" or "X is the"? Literally thousands. But this one shouldn't? /facepalm Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See "In December 2017, it was announced that Sanger had joined Everipedia as chief information officer.[19][20]" That is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you're actually claiming CZ was not intended as a rival to WP?! O rly?! Ok, sorry, there's no way to take you seriously as an unbiased editor now. There is no "problematic content" - the "problem", such as it is, appears to be that it was not written by you, and that's your objection. Can you please stop with your pointy edits, such as adding an OR tag to "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia" - that's very much evident from reading the body of the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See "In October 2006, Sanger started a rival online encyclopedia to Wikipedia, Citizendium.[18]" He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival". QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival". With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Just ... wow. Without prejudice to anything else you've said, that particular example is a textbook example of splitting hairs and is starting to compromise my assumption of good faith on your part. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)