Talk:Larry Sanger

Links of interest

To the best of my knowledge, I was first described as co-founder of Wikipedia back in September 2001 by The New York Times. That was also my description in Wikipedia's own press releases from 2002 until 2004. With my increasing distance from the project, and as it grew in the public eye, however, some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny my crucial, formative involvement. In fact, in the early years of the project, my role was not in dispute at all.

The following links have come to light, and they should dispel much of the confusion:

http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html

--Larry Sanger 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What, no picture?

I can't believe we have no photo of this guy! -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a fair use that was preumably purged beucase it violated FUC #1. Sanger comes here quite often; surely he could upload a personal photograph of himself or something. Hbdragon88 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

The article says:

Meanwhile, Sanger's status as "co-founder of Wikipedia" came to be disputed by Wales, who described Sanger as having been merely a subordinate employee.[3] Sanger concedes that it was Wales alone who conceived of an encyclopedia that non-experts could contribute to, i.e., the Nupedia.[4] However, Sanger maintains that it was he who brought the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia and that, after some initial skepticism, Wales agreed to try it. (Wales has claimed that one Jeremy Rosenfeld first suggested the idea of a wiki to him, though he claimed earlier, in October 2001, that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software" [1].) Sanger also maintains that he "came up with the name 'Wikipedia', a silly name for what was at first a very silly project." [5] In response to Wales' view of his role in Wikipedia, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of links which he claimed confirmed his "co-founder" role.[6]

I "maintain" a lot more than what this article says, and if you examine http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html you will see that many other people have "maintained" a lot more than what this article says. For one thing, I organized and led Wikipedia in its first 14 months. It has relatively little to do with who "conceived" of Wikipedia (though that's a small part of it), or who named it (an even smaller part of it; and this isn't something I "maintain" but a fact that no one has ever disputed). It has to do with who guided the community, and that is something that I did--and this is something that not only I "maintain," but which no one, not even Jimmy, has ever even disputed. --Larry Sanger 19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you think this article's biased, check out a recent interview with Wales about Wikipedia [1] in the well-known UK science magazine New Scientist, which doesn't mention Larry Sanger at all. Jsteph 08:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Concerns

I've tried voicing my concerns with the Wikipedia volunteers and/or administrators, since I really don't know who's who on here. So I've come here to the source behind Wikipedia hoping this will get me somewhere. First off I feel volunteers/administrators, not all but at least the select few i've had to deal with, are extremely biased and only want what they would like to read/see in articles. No matter how hard I tried everything seemed to be deleted with the simple wiki excuse "copyright problems and/or not reliable sources, or the article was written in a POV." This simple excuse has been the only one I've recieved after spending hours upon hours of typing, editing, typing, re-editing. All for some biased "volunteer" to tell me it's not good enough for them and delete everything I just worked so hard doing. Don't get me wrong, I think it is a great idea what these 2 gentlemen tried putting together. A "free" encyclopedia that someone can use without having to spend hundreds of dollars on 26 heavy books. But the word "free" is referring to monetary means not "free" speech. Articles are written and edited by those trying to turn everything into their POV without saying the words "I think, or I believe." I've read numerous articles without sources and which have been written in a POV state, which volunteers and adminisrators seem to overlook on certain issues. These are encyclopedias, surely not "free" but also not biased or discriminatory,(1)http://encarta.msn.com/, (2) http://www.britannica.com/ (3) http://www.worldbook.com/. It would be a complete and utter outrage to consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia in it's current state. Wikipedia is more of a blog webpage where anyone with the internet and a keyboard and fingers to type can logon and make an encyclopedia article, no brain or morals neccesary. In conclusion I honestly believe this site should be well constructed and put together more professionally, without the millions of different volunteers/administrators/ and the normal everyday joe, with millions of different opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matteo747 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

may i compliment you!

may i compliment you on what a great job you do on getting the worst most rudest volunteers that instead of helping they just spend there time insulting people they dont even know!, the person that created this site might consider being more hands on because if i were that person i would be ashamed on what a reck this is turning out to be. You might want to consider volunteer clean up because this site needs people that dont involve their personal life and personal problems such as racism and gossip with professional business i am well aware nobody gets paid to do this job but like they say if your going to do something do it right or dont do it at all Bacanaleranica 05:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What racism and gossip are you on about? Nobody can constructively respond to a complaint like that, because it has no specifics. Derex 05:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bacanaleranica is referring to issues pointed out in Talk:Nicaragua. To Bacanaleranica, can we discuss your dissatisfaction in concrete ways on the talk page for Nicaragua? It sounds like you really want to make Wikipedia a better resource and website, so let's get a it! Would you be willing to participate in the discussions started at the aforementioned site? Thanks JeffreyN 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"minor" yet controversial additions

Added recently as a 'minor change', this should be discussed here first. The sentence + refs below were added along with the clause "co-founder of Wikipedia" under Larry's picture. I'm not sure how to deal with the issue of project-founding in general (it's not just a matter of wales's & sangers's opinions; many others close to the project have opinions one way or another), but please be open about making controversial changes. +sj + 15:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Larry Sanger is widely reported as the co-founder of Wikipedia but Jimmy Wales still denies this.

For the founder issue, we compromised on Essjay controversy to just refer to both Wales and Sanger as "a founder", which seemed a fair compromise as Wales now says he is sole founder, but RS and his own words before 2004 said otherwise, and RS both refer to both men as founder. In other words, since it comes down to Wales word vs. Sanger's, we can't favor either... and since Wale's own words are contradictory, and RS are balanced, we split the difference and just called both a founder. Accurate either way, in that case, per ATT/RS/NPOV. We should do that here... - Denny 15:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Founder Nonsense

(Tell me I don't know how to write an attention-grabbing headline, ;-) )

After stumbling into this whole who-founded-wikipedia? debate while trying to challenge the anon edit policy and reading that Wales has tried to take sole credit and continues to take "co-founder" credit, just wanted to add my own take. To me, this is akin to John Lasseter of Pixar claiming he was co-creator of the film The Incredibles along with Brad Bird just because he A.) ran Pixar, B.) bought Bird's script, C.) hired Bird to direct it, and D.) gave advice on various aspects of the film's production. Seeing that Wales does not dispute that Sanger proposed it and shaped it, it seems that his only real argument is "Hey, I wrote the checks."

Look, I understand that he does alot for Wikipedia, but even Bill Gates doesn't go around claiming to have created the OS since the first one. RoyBatty42 18:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wales's whole case rests on the fact that Sanger was his employee. But this is entirely irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a business. Wales himself - and he can't have it both ways - always describes Wikipedia as some great "cultural" thing. As such, what matters is who did the actual creative work in founding it, not who paid the bills - just like the director of a film, and not the producer, is seen as the "creator" of the film. So if there's any "sole founder" of Wikipedia, it would be Sanger rather than Wales. But any such analysis is not necessary in this case because Wikipedia itself in the early years quite clearly identified its founders, i.e. both Wales and Sanger - and that was known by everyone involved at that time and there was not the slightest dispute about it.

As such, the "dispute" started by Wales in 2004 is patently artificial, self-serving, and meaningless. Wales's unilateral denial does not make the issue "controversial" because a controversy requires two sides with multiple notable people on each side. There is not a single authority who explicitly takes Wales's view. On the other hand there is ample evidence of Sanger being co-founder, it's not just Sanger's own claim.

In short, let's cut the bullshit. Any respect some here may still have for Wales must not be allowed to compromise NPOV. It is a verifiable fact that Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia. A single person's attempt to rewrite history does not change that at all. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If the evidence is so strong, why hasn't any of the press that has reported on this controversy cited it? Thus far all have managed to cover it as a matter of claim vs claim. It is hard to dispute that there is a controversy here. I certainly never got the impression that Sanger was co-founder back then. ::shrugs::. Bramlet Ambercrombie claims on his talk page that Sanger as co-founder is "shown by Wikipedia's own press releases", yet he doesn't cite anything. Could it just be that people who are eager to dislike Jimmy find the claim that this dispute is disingenuous to be so attractive that they don't bother to check if their position has actual merit?--Gmaxwell 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been cited over and over. See for example here, as late as February 2004: "The Wikipedia project was founded in January 2001 by Internet entrepreneur Jimmy Wales and philosopher Larry Sanger. Bomis (bomis.com), an Internet web portal owned by Wales, supplied the financial backing and other support, while Sanger led the Wikipedia project during its first year, as a full-time paid editor." Wales now claims that Sanger unilaterally smuggled this claim into the press releases, and we are supposed to believe that Wales didn't read them (that in itself would rather contradict his claim - what kind of founder doesn't read any of the press releases of the thing he founded?). And furthermore, we'd have to believe Wales didn't read any of the early media reports about Wikipedia either, not even those for which he himself was interviewed, such as this from September 2001. Bramlet Abercrombie 14:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can unambiguously define the word "founder" then this could presumably be settled trivially. That is surely the root of the problem, as I haven't seen Jimbo and Larry disagree over details. I assume they interpret the word differently. However, since the word is a bit nebulous, why do we need to use it at all? Why not simply leave it with a detailed description of the parts Larry played? Derex 15:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a very reasonable solution to me.... The essence of NPOV is stripping away all the things people disagree on to find the core ideas that are indisputably true. --Gmaxwell 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's so nebulous about it. It wasn't nebulous before 2004, and I still don't see why a single person should be allowed to change history like that. "Co-founder" is a useful short description for both Wales and Sanger, I don't know what you want to replace it with. You cannot explain their roles in depth wherever either of them is mentioned. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV solution to the nonsense

As we have RS that say both or either/or founded Wikipedia, and Larry says "we did it together", and Jimmy says "I did it alone", and since we ourselves will give neither credence (as is right), why not just call a spade a spade and refer to both as:

• "Jimmy Wales, a Wikipedia founder[9] and president of Wikia,[10] "
• "Larry Sanger, Editor-in-Chief of Citizendium and a founder[9] of Wikipedia,[24]"

thats what we did on Essjay controversy and it seems quite fair, NPOV, and amicable. The reader can decide based on sources, not our job to decide it for them. - Denny 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be needlessly inexact. You're right that we should give neither Wales's nor Sanger's say-so particular credence, but it's not just a matter between those two. Sanger's version is backed up by plenty of evidence, Wales's version isn't backed up by anything. No reliable source has ever taken his side and said that Sanger wasn't co-founder. It's a "dispute" between Wales and reality. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not good, We wouldn't say "Lincoln is gay" then cite to an article that describes a complex dispute over the matter. We should do as suggested above, avoid the word founder because it is disputed, and instead describe his involvement, which isn't disputed. We should also state someplace in the article that there is a dispute about this, since it appears to be important on the basis of multiple articles being written about it. --Gmaxwell 16:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Bramlet, if some generally reliable source such as NYTimes had actually done an investigation over the point of dispute here and concluded that Sanger was "founder", and that Jimbo was perpetrating a fraud with this, then I'd be more comfortable using the word. However, that's not the case as I understand it. I also have no idea how one could reach that determination without a precise definition of "founder". According to Jimbo at least, reporters have said they got the information from Wikipedia itself and from Larry. To a reporter I'm sure that seems very reasonable, because Wikipedia would surely have the details of its own genesis correct. Of course, we know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything, including whether Sanger was "co-founder". What we do know is that a major primary source (Jimbo) disputes the characterization. Absent evidence that a generally reliable secondary source has actually investigated this rather than treated it as an innocuous and unchallenged fact, then I do not view such sources as reliable and authoritative on this particular point of contention. Newspapers get little details wrong all the time, but once credibly challenged we do not then get to put those into Wikipedia as unquestioned fact simply because we can cite it. Ultimately, this whole thing is about politics, and we should refuse to play the game entirely. Neither Larry nor Jimbo should have the word "founder" applied to them by us as fact in their articles (though the dispute should be covered). There are plenty of other ways to accurately convey their respective roles without using this now-loaded word. Derex 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you have this backwards. It is Jimbo who accuses Larry of perpetrating a fraud. Since there is absolutely zero backup for this charge, it should be completely ignored. And before Jimbo started disputing the matter in 2004, there was an unquestioned general consensus about the two being co-founders. By what authority can Jimbo singlehandedly change this? Where do you think the NYT article in September 2001 got its information from? They interviewed both of them, and described them as co-founders, which is pretty clear evidence Wales agreed to this view then. You're suggesting that Jimbo can make an unfounded charge, and then we need reliable sources doing an investigation to disprove it before we can ignore it? Jimbo himself is not a reliable source on nontrivial matters relating to himself, on which he is obviously biased. If he doesn't have a reliable source to support his case, we don't need a reliable source to contradict him. Besides, any organization's press releases are reliable sources about their own personnel. It is only some people's cultish veneration of the "God-King" that prevents them from laughing his claim off like any other crank theory. Simple common sense makes it obvious that this is a self-serving attempt at rewriting history. Alternatively you would have to believe all of the following:

• Jimbo viewed himself as the sole founder from the beginning, although there is no evidence he ever said so before 2004.
• Larry, while he was still employed by Jimbo, dared to invent for himself the title of co-founder against Jimbo's wishes, and put this self-invented title into early press releases and on his userpage, etc., even though he must have assumed that Jimbo would very likely see it and object to it.
• Larry called himself co-founder to the New York Times, and even though they interviewed Jimbo too, Jimbo must have modestly kept silent about his view of who founded Wikipedia, and the reporters described Jimbo as a co-founder based solely on what Larry told them.
• Jimbo failed to read any of the press releases, Wikipedia pages, or press articles where he and Larry were called co-founders until 2004; or if he did notice it, he for some reason didn't care to "correct" it until 2004, even though since 2004 he has cared quite a bit about it (trying to recruit people on IRC to "clean this up all over the site" [2][3]; and telling the Associated Press: "When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia"[4]).
• Jimbo, despite considering himself the sole founder from the beginning, failed to convey this view to anyone else until 2004, given that no one else noticed a discrepancy between his view and the widely-published co-founder view. (Tellingly, Wales says about Sanger's "absurd claim": "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable." At the company? What have the people who managed Bomis' pornglamour-photography business to do with it? How about asking those who were there at the wiki[5]?) Bramlet Abercrombie 01:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of Jimbo ever personally referring to Larry as "co-founder"? You make a lot of inferences that Jimbo held this view prior to 2004, but there's no actual evidence for it. Derex 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but neither did he refer to himself as sole founder. The point is he must have seen all the references to him and Larry as co-founders, and yet he never objected to this view before 2004. And now he's calling it "absurd" and a "lie". Bramlet Abercrombie 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. He's now calling it absurd and a lie. Clearly it's disputed by a relevant party. You have absolutely no evidence he ever saw it differently. First, you don't know that he saw it. Second, you don't know that he didn't object. All you know is that he didn't object in a public forum, and you don't even really know that affirmatively. Derex 01:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again a bizarre reversal of the burden of proof. So Jimbo can make any outlandish claim, not backed by one shred of evidence, and then others have to disprove it? It's up to him to provide evidence, and clearly he can't. So we go by the existing evidence. Wales's current claims are not relevant at all, if they contradict what was the 100% universal view up to 2004, according to all evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie 01:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to your change, but I expect it to be reverted soon since anything, including what is actually being disputed and by whom, reflecting even the hint of credability to Sangers claim causes either fullon reversals, or nicely cracted POV sentences in it's place. mceder (u t c) 21:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Essjay controversy

To accomadate relevant discussion, I've moved all further discussion related to Wales and Sanger from Talk:Essjay controversy to here. Since users at that talk page have consensus to discuss it here, restoring it to Essjay's article will result in a block for disruption! --w^{L<speak·check>} 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of this move/merge. Most of the discussion below is about whether Wales has an official title or not, why is that relevent to this article? Second, stop threatening people with blocks for discussing a legitimate topic. If you don't like it you could take the article off your watch list. David D. (Talk) 23:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed everything not relevent to Sanger. See Wales' talk page. David D. (Talk) 00:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

content moved from Essay controversy talk page

My preferred version personally is to describe Sanger as "Citizendium editor-in-chief and former Wikipedia community manager", because that explains why his opinions of Wikipedia members matter (he runs a competing organization and has ample experience with the Wikipedia meta side) without delving into whether this makes him a "founder" or not. --tjstrf talk 08:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• I concur-- this isn't the forum for arguing who is or isn't the founder of Wikipedia. That Quack refuses to drop the matter, repeatedly reverting and re-inserting his own preferred language, seems to indicate that he is a tendentious editor, whose purpose is to promote a particular view. If he continues on this course, I would recommend blocking for trying the community's patience.--Leflyman^Talk 06:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have left a message to your account Quack. I will make this short and sweet. These posts are disruptive and are trying the community's patience, further disruption will cause you to be blocked. --w^{L<speak·check>} 06:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How lovely, Quack has now been surpassed in his zeal by User:Bramlet Abercrombie, a single purpose account who does nothing except edit war and argue for Sanger being described as founder on every page where he is mentioned. --tjstrf talk 19:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Sanger described as "describing himself as co-founder", which clearly implies he's the only one to do so, or at least in a minority there, which couldn't be further from the truth, since Wales is the only notable person who denies it (and only since three years after the fact at that)? Bramlet Abercrombie 19:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the statement is libelous, and as such can be removed without regard to 3RR. If someone is something, you can't say he "refers to himself as X", even though that's technically correct. It is like saying "George W. Bush, who refers to himself as president of the United States" - with the inevitable implication that he isn't really president. Sanger doesn't cease to be co-founder (as evidenced by official Wikipedia press releases and numerous other sources) just because a single person (Wales) suddenly starts to deny it, three years after the fact and without any evidence. Bramlet Abercrombie 21:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• The statement is not libelous (of which I'd recommend you review the meaning); it is what the article being cited from the Boston Globe says: "Sanger, who at times calls himself the cofounder..."--Leflyman^Talk 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's within a totally different context. The way you use it, it sounds like Sanger claims to be, but isn't really, the co-founder. And why should a single press reference be good enough for your wording, when there are many more references that directly call him co-founder? Bramlet Abercrombie 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seldom seen anyone so consistently, willfully, and wrong-headedly misinterpret policy as you, Abercrombie, from your very first edit on. If it's not willful, then it's just sad. Derex 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)