Talk:Larry Sanger

Semantics of 'founder' wrt Sanger

It seems to me that an entities' founder is the owner/entrepreneur, even if the creative work is shared. Eg - transitor was coined by somebody at Bell Labs. A transistor is an invention while Bell Labs is an enterprise. Who was the founder of Bell Labs? AT&T and General Electric, in 1925. Was the first president of Bell Labs its founder? Perhaps it would be more accurate to term him its "founding president"(?) ↜Just M E here , now 20:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder discussion rumbles on

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

assisted with the founding sounds more neutral..even Wales' article should even say it. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, QuackGuru is correct in this. The "co-founder" has been a topic of debate over many, many, many, threads. The community has long ago agreed to "co-founder". — Ched :  ?  07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But does Jimbo agree with it?--Trulexicon (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense to either you or Jimbo - but it really doesn't matter. We operate on consensus. That's one of our basic principles. — Ched :  ?  07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for a while so I know that...but still Jimbo's a party involved in this issue, so his word carries more weight. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually - nope, not in this case. Jimbo doesn't really get involved in "content disputes" per se. If you feel a dispute needs to be resolved here - please see: WP:DR, perhaps a RFC could be done - but I doubt it would really resolve things in your favor. To be honest, I do agree with you, but I long ago came to the realization that the community had chosen the wording. As much as I would like to side with you on this matter, it's simply not a viable option. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I could do an RFC about this? hmm that might be a good idea...--Trulexicon (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Protect

Fully protect it prevent a more protracted edit war on this article. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is already at "semi". As this is a single editor type of thing, the more common remedy would be "blocks". Please see: WP:3RR before you continue. I can appreciate your viewpoints, but we do have some established procedures here, and I'd hate to see you getting into a bad situation. Thanks — Ched :  ?  07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know about the 3 revert rule; I'm not reverting any verison back to mine for now anyway...but I feel we should seriously consider fully protecting the article, I don't care which version just fully protect.--Trulexicon (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but the WP:RFPP things would indicate that it isn't warranted quite yet. You could submit the article there, but I suspect it would be declined for the moment. — Ched :  ?  07:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)