Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2

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)

A few other biographical items

There are a few other biographical items mentioned in this news article. He received his MS and PhD from OSU. He also taught there. --TedPavlic 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Role in early Wikipedia (the "founder/editor/employee" debate)

This section is an umbrella section for several subsections related to this aspect of the article

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)

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)

"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)

Sanger was not "first paid editor"

Sanger was paid as editor-in-chief of Nupedia, not Wikipedia. "First" indicated there was a series of paid editors, which is not the case. --Leflyman^Talk 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sanger was not "co-founder"

Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has clearly stated that Larry Sanger was not "co-founder" of Wikipedia. Like a number of other people, Sanger was active during the early days and as such played a role. However, Wikipedia was founded by Jimbo Wales. D. Vater-Luxembourg 19:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wales is not a reliable source :) j/k. Like all material, its not about the "truth" its about what reliable sources have reported/stated. Anyways, --Tom 19:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As this is his project, Wales is a reliable source. Wales stated this in the mailing list. If you are not happy with that, you may find yourself a different project. D. Vater-Luxembourg 19:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia policies apply to this article, just like any other. Addhoc 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're new to wikipedia you may want to familiarize yourself with wikipedia before jumping into controversial edits. If you personally know Wales, then just ask him yourself. I doubt very much he'd want you recommending other users to leave the project. David D. (Talk) 20:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the relevant point is that Wikipedia should remain neutral, and not take a stand on controversial points. The controvery over who should be called "founder" of Wikipedia is well-known, and therefore Wikipedia should not take a stand on it. This article, of course, currently does take a stand. I consider that unfortunate at best. --Jimbo Wales 14:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Takes a stand or states what has been reported by the sources it references? The word controversial is also very relative, depending on who you ask about the issue. mceder (u t c) 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just glancing at the header, the three sources referenced for the word "co-founder" all point to articles quoting Larry Sanger. Coming from a secondary source doesn't change the fact that this article is declaring him a co-founder based entirely on quotes of the primary source. As presented, it's a biased point of view. --InkSplotch 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't glance at the headers, read through the references. Also read the Wikipedia article, where references in this matter have not been removed as they have in this article. Wikipedia's official personnel page from September 2001 states that Wales and Sanger were the two co-founders. [6] is one example. There are several archived and early press releases from the organisation that references Sanger as a co-founder. mceder (u t c) 07:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not reading more closely, I did mischaracterize. Two of the three references lead to articles which describe the very controversy between Wales and Sanger over who are "founders." One of them, mostly a bio of Sanger, is the only one to actually declare Sanger as a founder. Two links in the Wikipedia article that supposedly support the claim of co-foundership are really just one link (the other points back to the first) to that archive.org version of Wikipedia's personnel page you've linked to here.

Keep in mind, that Wikipedia page is, itself, part of the Wiki. That anyone can edit. And as seen here, Sanger was the last one to edit that particular version. I'm just trying to say, more has been recorded on the 'controversy' that actually tries to establish which version is true. We, the wiki editors, shouldn't be trying to decide the matter either. Coverage of the controversy should certainly be included (possibly here, possibly in the Wikipedia article), since it looks notable enough, but it must remain neutral. Instead of page long arguments over who to call 'founder', don't call anyone founder and just present the facts. --InkSplotch 23:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny that this issue is so hotly debated on both sides. The facts seems to always be facts and never facts. It seems wikia spirit sometimes perhaps overturn good faith editing when it pertains to its own, especial the inside circle (i.e Essjay, Wales etc). Perhaps the best thing is if Wikipedia does not write articles about its members, past or present, since they seem to stir up so much emotion. I know I have wasted enough time on this very trivial matter and think I will go off to work on some Swedish history articles instead.. John III of Sweden is in dire need of expansion! :) mceder (u t c) 19:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#History_of_NPOV

• Sanger was the community leader of Wikipedia. He ran the project. Did you know when we are a citing policy on Wikipedia we are citing Sanger? Larry Sanger did a lot of work to establish and build Wikipedia from the ground up. I find it to be very interesting that anyone could deny the facts. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

blog entry

I have removed a statement that is linked to a blog written by the subject of this bio. Is it me, or does anybody else think we can do better than that? Thanks! --Tom 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Libellous claims?

Larry Sanger has, at the Citizendium blog, states that several of Jimmy Wales' claims regarding the founding of Wikipedia are libellous. I've tried to insert this claim into the article, but have been reverted, on the grounds that Larry Sanger's blog isn't a reliable source about Larry Sanger. (This is a misunderstanding of WP:EL.) However, would it be a better solution to remove all of Wales' claims which Sanger has characterized as libellous from this article, in accordance with WP:BLP, except those which are more reliably sourced than Sanger's claim of libel? User:Argyriou (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanger's blog is an entirely reliable source about Sanger. From WP:BLP#Reliable_sources: "Material found in self-published...blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject. --C.m.jones 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I argued that, as well, but the larger question remains - Sanger has claimed that Wales' recent claims about Sanger's role in creating Wikipedia are libellous. Should those claims be removed? The fact that Wales has made such claims is amply documented by reliable sources, but does BLP allow us to present potentially libellous claims, when the subject has called them libellous, and has provided evidence of their falsity? Wikipedia is not committing libel by publishing them, so long as we state "X has said Y about Z", rather than stating "Z has done Y". But BLP is more than just about libel. User:Argyriou (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also from reliable sources, material should be included only if :it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; That material falls into those it seems. --Tom 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Material found in self-published...blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject." That does not mean blogs should always be used when written or published by the subject. That just means they should never be used in other cases. It's a logical fallicy to assume otherwise. SakotGrimshine 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be short, there is no consensus for this statement by Larry Sanger. Thanx, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My revert on the founder issue, again

So I dont know why I get into this again. And my edit note did not make much sense, it is too early. But I encourage Anonymous IP to start a discussion here to attempt and build consensus on the founder issue before changing the article. Good luck. --mceder (u t c) 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Founder/co-founder comment

NOTE: Jimmy Wales is the founder of Wikipedia, not a co-founder. Larry Sanger was just his employee following his orders and cannot be considered as a co-founder. If you started a business and your employee says that he/she is entitled to be a co-founder of your business because they were there at the beginning of the business, is that an argument you would accept? It doesn't make sense does it? Sanger's argument is not logical. I feel that he has taken advantage of Jimmy Wale's generosity in allowing him to be credited as a co-founder when in actuality he is not. Sanger was simply a paid employee doing what his boss directed him to, with Wales entrusting him with the freedom to do as he deemed fit. Why is Sanger so hung up on being known as a co-founder of Wikipedia anyway? All his activities to date has shown that he is trying to destroy Wikipedia. Would a co-founder want to destroy his own baby? This clearly shows Sanger was never a co-founder of Wikipedia and should be reflected in Wikipedia as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.160.42.73 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. Larry is the only one claiming co-founder status. The press picks up on it, and so now its sourced and "fact" on Wikipedia. In fact, there is CONSIDERABLE controversy over Sanger's claim that is strangely being hushed up in this article. So much for multiple POVs. Guess we'll have to wait for Wales's book to make it official, it will be very embarrassing for Sanger in the long term. He should be ashamed of himself for claiming co-founder status without approval from Wales. Who does he think he's kidding? People see through it, "co-founder" is a dark mark on his reputation. -- 71.191.43.139 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What about the press releases from Wikimedia, stating he was a co-founder at the time of press release? mceder (u t c) 08:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of word "founder"

The word "founder" is not an objective descriptor, it can mean different things depending on who is using it and for what purpose. It could be applied to Sanger, or it could not, depending how one interprets "founder". As such, since there is controversy and ambiguity about its use, shouldn't we find a different term? It seems to me anyone who argues that it should be kept it taking a political position - the alternative it simply to find a more exact and accurate term that is not controversial, or at least frame the usage within the context of who calls him founder (himself). This has been mentioned a few times above and yet a number of users seem very stubborn about keeping the term "founder" as stated objective fact. -- 71.191.43.139 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. ---C.m.jones 07:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And a number of users seem very determined about removing Larry's role as anything but an employee. What about the press releases from Wikimedia, stating he was a co-founder at the time of press release? mceder (u t c) 08:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"removing Larry's role as anything but an employee" -- huh? No one said that, it's not a simple black and white issue like that. Yes there is the press release, but what about Wales saying Larry is not a founder? You can't have it both ways, using an old press release while ignoring more recent developments. There is clearly controversy that is not being mentioned in the article. Honestly, it looks like favoritism and politics not to mention there is a controversy, or even a qualifier, over the title of founder. -- 71.191.43.139 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More yawns. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 15:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The old press releases and other articles are pretty strong proof. The fact that one man disputes Sanger's status does not make a controversy. If you can find any early documents that support Wales' new viewpoint please feel free to reference them. 68.117.211.187 02:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do so many anon IP's even care? David D. (Talk) 02:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

ZZZZZzzzz. C.m.jones 02:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like we in fact have a very simple issue here, not worth all this wordage. The key points are:

1. There are two points of view. Both are notable, so we characterize both.
2. Sanger's viewpoint is he was the co-founder and editor; we can say that, and explain in summary why he says that and the sorts of documents he cites to back it up.
3. Wales' viewpoint can likewise be explained.
4. If Wales' (or indeed LS's) view appears to differ from what documents of those days shows, then we can note (NPOV) that earlier documents of his do not clearly show this viewpoint, which was first documented on [date first evidence of this viewpoint] [CITE].
5. We do not, ourselves, have to reach a conclusion, and we probably should not.
6. In summary, we note that LS (?was formative and) had a key role in early Wikipedia [uncontested fact], though since he left Wikipedia there has been a substantial difference in his and Wales' description of his involvement and position. We can add that earlier documents appear to be more in line with the view of [LS or JW depending who they support], if that is the case, and if the matter is clear enough based upon verifiable cites.
7. We ourselves do not need to argue and re-enact the debate. We present the evidence and describe the disagreement and how it is shown by reference to reliable sources, to have evolved over time.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are terribly mistaken, FT2. This issue has been settled so many times--settled as to how to convey the debate with economy of words and neutrality--it is boring, sickening, silly, tribal, banal, childish. What you are mistaken about is that certain people, ones on the "Wales only" side, even so much as want a sane solution. They don't. They just don't. C.m.jones 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This expresses your view on the agenda (or approach) of others in the debate. Obviosuly (though they have not replied), they will have a view too. But a good debate resolution is obtained by consensus, where possible. Do you, yourself, feel that the policy-based view to this disagreement which I've summarized above is either misrepresenting (or under/over emphasizing) any facts, omitting any notable information from verifiable reliable sources, distorting any views or the debate as a whole, breaching any policy, or otherwise not a fair view to have on this disagreement? It seems a very simple matter to document neutrally. As for others, if others edit non-neutrally then that's a different concern, my question here is whether I'm missing anything myself, or if you are in broad agreement that I've captured the main points in the debate from your perspective in an appropriate policy-compliant way. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Larry is a co-founder

OK, lets review.

1. It does not matter what Wales' opinion or Sanger's opinion is.
2. The facts must be written from a neutral point of view.*
3. What is th definition of founder. A person who established Wikipedia.
4. Two people worked togther to establish and build Wikipedia from the beginning.
5. When two people work together and start a project from the very beginning they will be both called co-founders.
6. There was never a dispute when Larry Sanger was still part of this project.*
7. When Larry was heading the project he was widely known as a co-founder.
8. It is well documented. In the beginning (before 2004) - various articles, Wikipedia press releases, and Wikipedia articles all described Larry as co-founder.
9. Some articles refer to Jimmy Wales as 'the' founder (starting about 2004) but do not explain the co-foundership issue at hand.
10. The revisionist years (about 2004) is a rewrite of history. Wales never disputed the facts until after Larry left the project.
11. Mr. Jimmy Wales has never given any documented evidence for his new version (since 2004) of reality (revisionism).
12. At the risk of repeating myself, Wales never disputed his co-founder position before 2004.
13. The article provides strong evidence that resolves the issue (a multitude of references).
14. Please don't forget this. Sanger was always known as co-founder when he was running the project.
15. After Larry left the project, thats when the alteration of reality started taking place. "Ooh."
16. Read some of the references in the article to get to up to speed on the facts and the history of Wikipedia.
17. By the way, the appeal for the verifiability of the facts is exactly what the Wikipedia community demands in its WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:ATT policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's consensus.

• Cordially, _-Mr. ^o G-_16:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of these are accurate, some are not.

1. It does matter what they claim. Their claims are notable. So is other evidence.
2. We do not in fact need to define "founder" to judge this matter, as you have done. In fact, we should not. What you are doing there is a synthesis or OR -- namely, forming your own view whether he was a founder by asking what a founder is. That doesn't matter. What matters is "A says B" -- that LS says he was the founder, or JW says (or denies) it, or documents from reliable sources do or don't say it. We are not abritrators or judges who need to examine and rule on what a "founder" is, then consider if evidence shows he was one. We are neutral; we do not in fact mind if he was or was not a founder. We are attempting to summarize the state of the debate over time, for readers to learn who has said what, and present the verifiable backup to that.
3. Summarizing the debate is easy for you or I (or any editor) to do neutrally. Judging whether he was or was not the founder for ourselves is almost certainly in this debate going to result in a breach of WP:NPOV or WP:OR.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Redundant response. Please try to focus. Wrong article for your proposal. This article already explains what Jimmy disputes/claims after Larry left the project. This article is about Larry Sanger and not Wikipedia co-founder dispute. If you believe the dispute is very notable you can start a new article. That is your choice. First start it in your subuserpage. Get help from other editors and go for it. For more details you can read the History of Wikipedia. It explains the debate there too. For this article it does not matter so much what each one claims. Nevertheless, there is a brief mention of Jimmy's view and Larry's claim in this article. If you want to add more information you have to find the correct place to put it. At first, I have no idea what you are proposing. But I have an idea. Here is the gateway. > Wikipedia co-founder dispute. QuackGuru 23:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A305w said it best. He stated in part: Of course Larry Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia--this fact was trumpeted during the early years of Wikipedia. No amount of whitewashing or revisionism is going to change that. I will leave it at that. End of discussion!  Mr.Guru  talk  01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about co-organizer instead of Founder per se?--Trulexicon 00:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

assisting with the founding of wikipedia is a little more npov I think.--Trulexicon 01:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be protected, I'm trying to compromise but with no luck.--Trulexicon 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a two hour break from editing this article...I dont't want to deal with it until later. --Trulexicon 01:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think what both Sanger and Wales think matters as they are living people and subjects of this and the Jimmy Wales article. I oppose calling Sanger co-founder, SqueakBox 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Intro

We're keeping the stuff about Wikipedia in the intro. Larry Sangers is largely known for being the co-founder. Especially when it is so, I have to suspect your motive for purposely attempting remove the Wikipedia info in the intro. It's not even provocative or POV - it just says "helping". Our dear Jimmy has gone mad. (Wikimachine 03:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

• In an attempt to compromise, I restored the "co-founder" title with an "arguably" qualifier in front of it. I wouldn't expect any solution to stay in place more than a day given the controversy, but I think this is most neutral. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arguably just sounded bad. parenthesis would work better. Look, we're on the same page. (Wikimachine 03:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I preferred my wording, but okay - it sounds neutral enough to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"Arguably" can be considered a weasel wording. Also it's two-edged. It could mean that Sarry Langer is most likely a co-founder, it could also mean that the fact that Sarry Langer is co-founder is arguable. (Wikimachine 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Actually XDanieX, your edit there is the best. (Wikimachine 04:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I could agree with this compromise for the time being--Trulexicon 05:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What's up, Trulexicon. Your contributions is quite interesting. You joined today. You engaged in an edit war today. And that on Larry Sangers. You seem to know much about Wikipedia & its policies. I hope that this is not a sock puppetry case. (Wikimachine 05:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

I've editing as anon for quite sometime (in the 200 range) mostly on polish related articles, this controversy has been pretty heated in aol chatrooms as a matter of fact, so I wanted to try to edit with npov on these wiki related articles.--Trulexicon 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Could you explain what you don't like about the current version? Or are you just being cautious by reserving right to propose changes in the future? (Wikimachine 05:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

The current version isn't bad at all, it is a point of contention over whether Sanger truly co-founded wikipedia (the word "found" is a loaded term besides...e.g. Columbus found America)--Trulexicon 05:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

<outdent>Why should we even care? 10 years from now it will be like, Larry who?? Wales will have single handedly founded Wikipedia and Larry won't even be in the footnotes; Larry's article will probably be deleted by then for not being notable for having done anything related to the web. Nice how revisionist history/editing works :) Cheers! --Tom 12:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody will have cared about your comment right here either. (Wikimachine 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC))

Very true ;)--Tom 17:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The info added to the intro is already in the 'origins of Wikipedia' section. It is essentially duplication. In addition, I will also remove an irrelevant external link that was recently added. Thanks.  Mr.Guru  talk  15:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The intro should not contain duplicate text already mentioned in the Origins of Wikipedia section. There is no point to adding the redundancy.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2004 dispute is clearly mentioned in the Origins of Wikipedia section.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

irrelevant external link

Trulexicon has repeatedly added an external link that is not notable in any way to Sanger.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, the external link must be removed. The link is also unreliable and not notable.  Mr.Guru  talk  03:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. --Tom 14:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The website is an attack piece and has no value for any encyclopedia.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanger talks

[7] <see here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trulexicon (talk • contribs) 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo talks

Check it out!  Mr.Guru  talk  16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2002 press release described Sanger and Wales as "co-founders", the 2003 press release stated Sanger and Wales founded the site, and the 2004 press release describes Sanger as a founder. Very well. The issue has been resolved. Cheers.  Mr.Guru  talk  16:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrespective, like saying that Columbus founded america; Mr. QuackGuru as far as I'm concerned this issue is far from being resolved.-Trulexicon 02:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a false analogy. Debolaz 13:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Trulexicon, please explain this!

http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=367096

The second voting says;

"9/20/07 PH2 5 5 5 5 I am a sock puppet on Wikipedia named Trulexicon."

Here you state you are a sock puppet where you edit in both the Larry Sanders artical and the Jimmy Wales artical.

Your comment of being a sock puppet at the very least should be a block of posting anything to either of these articles, but my personal opinion is that your account should be permanently blocked as a sock account which you seem to proudly announce on the external link. But this of course is not up to me so I will bring it to administrator’s attention. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why so many new accounts and IP's defending Wales to the end here? Why are these users afraid to show themselves, surely wikipedia would not be against such editors? Why are you all going the anonymous route here? David D. (Talk) 20:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

non cofounder bullshit

of course he was the co-founder of wikipedia [8] is proof that Jimmy tried to cover it up [9] some more information if you think i'm just pulling sources out of my ass. Larry was the cofounder of wikipedia and i don't know how else to prove that wikipedia is trying to censor that. Mrmattkatt 01:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Even more hilariously, Jimbo has apparently created (or had created) a user category of "Founder" (n.b. not "Founders"), of which he is the sole member. I laughed until I cried. -- EMET-MET 23:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi, is his surname /sæŋɡɚ/ or /sæŋɚ/ in IPA? (In other words, is the g pronounced as in "finger", or is it just "ng" as in "singer"? --Kjoonlee 15:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Failing as a good article

Unfortunately, for what is an interesting read (of a story I already knew) the prose, style issues in particular and balance/point-of-view issues partially mean that this article does not meet the good article criteria. I've detailed a few of the issue below but basically: The lead is too short, prose needs lots of work, style (references and quotes) are a problem and the article reads as unbalanced and occationally pushing a point-of-view.

Well Written - please check through the article (this is a cherry picked list, so is not comprehensive). There are a lot of prose issues that prevent this from being well written enough.

• A partial list of authored work, essays, and presentations Sanger has written include: (implicit in "written")
• "On 25 March 2007 Citizendium ended its pilot phase and went live, into its beta phase, and the site became publicly readable" -> "On 25 March 2007, Citizendium ended its pilot phase, entering a live and publicly readable beta phase"
• According to philosopher Sanger -> According to Sanger. It's already been stated he's a philosopher.
• In December 2005, Digital Universe Foundation announced that Sanger had been hired as Director of Distributed Content Programs, where he would lead the Digital Universe Encyclopedia content resource of the larger web project launched in early 2006 - Split into two sentence and reword "of the larger web project launched in early 2006"
• Unlike Wikipedia, the Digital Universe encyclopedia plans to bring in recognized experts to certify the accuracy of user-submitted articles as well as to write articles themselves. There seems no need for "Unlike Wikipedia" and this could easily be cut down to The Digital Universe encyclopedia plans to recruit recognized experts to write articles, and to check user-submitted articles for accuracy.
• Sanger returned to the academic world as a lecturer at The Ohio State University, -> Sanger began work as a lecturer at Ohio State University, "returned to the academic world" is needlessly wordy and the indefinite article is not needed here.
• Wikipedia's co-founder Sanger said in respect to seeking to create a better and more credible online encyclopedia -> In reference to the creation of a more credible online encyclopedia Sanger said. It's already been stated sufficiently that he's the co-founder of WP and "better" is such a loose term - better that what in terms of what ? Better to leave better out.
• Responding to frustrations with the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was Wikipedia. This is long, clunky and does not need the note about Wikipedia as it's clear from the preceding and following sentences- better as something like Frustrated at the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed a wiki be created to spur article development
• Later, in December 2004... dec 04 is clearly later to a reader from the context.
• Too many quotes in the text. Many of these should be cut down and converted to prose that flows.
• The origins of Wikipedia began when Ben Kovitz, a computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's wiki, introduced Sanger to wikis over dinner on the evening of January 2, 2001. - "The origins of" and "began" duplicate the same information and, given the context, "Wikipedia" is unneeded - better is Sanger was introduced to wikis at a January 2, 2001 dinner with Ben Kovitz; computer programmer and regular on Ward Cunningham's wiki
• Sanger announced a fork of Wikipedia, named Citizendium -> Sanger announced Citizendium, a fork of Wikipedia . He did not announce a fork, he announced Citizendium and stated it would be a fork.
• Sanger took a "leave of absence" - why is leave of absence in quotes ? Seems no need for this.
• The density of the redundancies/issues really requires work. I suggest the league of copyeditors to help

Style issues

• The lead is too short and does not adequately summarise the article (see WP:LEAD)
• Per Wikipedia:Avoid self references the Wikipedia links in External links should not be there, probably the Meta ones too
• Multiple references - while I understand the need to really well source things like the Wikipedia cofoundership the layout of the ref links makes the article very hard to read. Better is:

  "Sanger has been widely cited in the media as a co-founder".... With all of the references combined into one so the reflist reads the same length and the article is less messy

• The references inside the "Citizendium launched" quotes do not make sense. A quote has one reference at the end not three, with one of these in the middle. If you need multiple references then it's clearly a constructed quote from multiple sources which is misleading.

Balance/POV/broadness

• The article appears unbalanced - only 1 paragraph (140ish words) on his first 30ish years but over 700 on the 2 years he was at wikipedia. I think the latter section could do with some editing down and it would be good if something could be found on the citation/usage of his theses and more on his life prior to Nupedia.
• Two weeks after the launch of Citizendium, Sanger heavily criticized Wikipedia...perhaps let the readers determine if the criticism is heavy. This is not the only place that loaded qualifiers are used - need to be watched for as they are biased and unnecessary.

Non essential stuff

• would be good to add the persondata information (see Wikipedia:Persondata)

- Peripitus (Talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have updated and expanded the article. Please review for a good article. Quack Guru 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Co

It is disputed to say the l;east that Sanger is co-founder and we have to abide by our neutrality policy and to state this as fact is simply violating that policy. We can discuss the issue in the article inclus=ding Sanger's claim to be the co-founder but we are not empowered to make him the co-founder. Jimbo Wales is known as the founder in common usage and this contradicts that. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't disputed. It is disputed by Jimbo, and that's it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not an argument, it is a claim of yours, you and the hard core group of DSanger supporters do not own the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I think this is where you lose credibility: "hard core group of DSanger supporters" . I don't know Sanger. I don't want to know Sanger. I really don't care about Sanger. What I care about is the "bastardization" of this article from its earlier versions. Maybe we should call him just "founder" since that is what editors want to refer to Wales as, and the same argue that that doing so does not imply that he is the sole founder. There are ample reliable sources that call Sanger a co-founder of Wikipedia. I could call people who want to remove "founder" from Sanger's article a "hard core group of JWales supporters" but I will not do that. Anyways,--Tom 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

We cannot call Sanger the founder as he is not known as the founder of wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then just call him co-founder, as he has been called that by many reliable sources and we can be done. --Tom 21:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact. No one ever showed anyone else of note disputing it. The burden of proof is on your side to show there's a general dispute. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a fact and its not common usage either. In terms of wikipedia I certainly dispute this and outside of wikipedia no need for a dispute, Wales is known as the founder, as I have demonstrated elsewhere, and Sanger isn't. I left the piece about him being chief organiser so I am certainly not POV pushing against Sanger. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You disputing it is meaningless. If you want to put Sanger's co-foundership in question, you need to find sources explicitly contradicting it - but there are none, the only one who does so (and even that only since 2004) is Jimbo himself, who is obviously not an unbiased source in the matter. There are plenty of sources confirming it, so your edit calling it "alleged" is absurd. "Alleged" by Wikipedia's own press releases? "Alleged" by the New York Times and countless other media? Amazing how for you Jimbo's mere say-so becomes the default truth, negating all reliable sources. I guess it's the same mechanism by which the mere fact that The Register reports critically about Wikipedia makes it ipso facto an unreliable source. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't allege that the edits and opinions of your fellow editors are meaningless as such statements will be interpreted by many as trolling. You'll have to do better than that with an experienced wikipedian like me. Your claim that only Jimbo disputes this is unsourced and IMO unsourced rubbish, Jimbo is not known as the co-founder but as the founder by the vast majority of people, and while The Register clearly can be a reliable source you bet that it isnt so re wikipedia due to the barrel scraping tabloid nature of their recent articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What I said is that your opinion is meaningless in the wider world and does not make something objectively "disputed". If you want to claim something is disputed, provide evidence of such dispute, i.e. explicit claims that Jimbo is sole founder coming from any notable source other than Jimbo himself. Ball's in your court. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not disputed. Jimbo doesn't admit that Sanger is the co-founder, but multiple reliable sources do, and last I checked, that's all that matters. Jimbo's status as god-king doesn't overrule WP:RS, at least at the moment. Mr Which??? 04:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't make something exist merely because you want it to, please desist from what looks like an attempt at POVing this article in favour of an opinion. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Just stop. The only one "POVing" anything here is you. Multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." I personally don't give a damn what's actually true. All I know is that multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." You can pound on us all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that multiple reliable sources call Sanger "co-founder." The sooner you deal with that fact, the better off the article, and this talkpage, will be. Mr Which??? 03:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Calm down

Folks - this is way out of hand and the ad hominem arguments will never help to improve the article or assist Wikipedia in any way. It is very clear that:

• Sanger calls himself the co-founder (and goes to great lengths to back this up) - as this is well documented it's relevant to put in the article.
• The media, as noted in the article, generally calls him the co-founder so it is correct from a Wikipedia point of view to refer to him as such (once please - repeatedly will make the article look odd).
• Jimbo disputes this, claims himself as the founder and is ill-at-ease with the subject. This well documented and so it is also relevant to put in the article.
• Lots of people feel strongly either way and perhaps should read the essay on their approach.

Editors need to make sure that articles do not become a vehicle for opinions rather than encyclopedic records. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the media calls Jimbo the founder, a few POV warriors here will not change that or the fact that we need to follow NPOV and common usage. I fully agree that this article must not become a vehicle for opinionated people. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

And Mr Quack has merely proven my point with his latest edit summary "blockworthy disruption per WP:BLOCK policy" which is as trolling an edit summary as I have ever had the displeasure to see. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw this at WP:ANI. I recall someone mentioning once that in former Wikimedia documents and press releases, Larry Sanger was referred to as the "co-founder" of Wikipedia. QuackGuru, are you familiar with this? --Iamunknown 00:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

We need to rely on reliable secondary sources, which clearly support the "Jimbo as founder" reality, we are simply not empowered to claim that Larry was the co-founder when he wasn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What if primary sources, such as from the Foundation, mention that he is co-founder? I don't know of any such sources, but I recall that people have mentioned them before. --Iamunknown 00:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sanger as co-founder sources

I saw this on ANI, and just did a quick Google, and found this. Quite a few (Around 100) secondary sources that assert Sanger as co-founder. Unless I'm mistaken, primary-source statements by anyone cannot trump sources, but would be noted if there is a dispute? How should that work, specifically? Lawrence Cohen 05:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, you are on the money here. The world (secondary sources like news) has, on balance, decided he's the co-founder and so, for the purposes of an article on him, he is. The recent activity on the article probably belongs in lamest edit wars - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Squeakbox has decided that it's his mission to promote the "Sanger as subordinate only" view, using not secondary sources that say that, but secondary sources that call Jimbo the "founder." Evidently s/he simply ignores the hundreds of secondary sources that call Sanger the "co-founder." Mr Which??? 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

He isnt known as the co-founder of wikipedia which is far more famous than him. We are an educational encyclopedia and to insert falsehoods to promote the subject of this biography (who clearly wants to have the fame of wikipedia rub off on him) clearly violates NPOV as well as other policies, such as BLP. MrWhich I suggest you do not allege what are the motiviations behind my behaviour as you are embarrassingly wrong. And as for the ridiculous that the world has decided that Sanger is the co-founder, this is simply not true otherwise he would be widely known instead of being highly obscure. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting rather humorous. You really do need to stop now, though. Multiple reliable sources call him "co-founder", which is all that matters, your opinion notwithstanding. The sooner you deal with what the reliable sources actually say, the sooner we will all be free from this silliness. Mr Which??? 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when did a content guideline trump our most important policies, ie NPOV and BLP. I understand why Sanger supporters want this but the problem is we should not have Sanger supporters editing here as such, only encyclopedia editors who can edit neutrally and dispassionately and its certainly news to most people that Sanger is a founder of wikipedia, this role is what Jimmy Wales is known as, so I suggest you do not tell me I need to stop arguing in favour of our wikipedia policies merely because you happen to disagree with me and think you can rewrite history with a few refs. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a damn about Sanger. All I care about is whether the information in his article can be reliably sourced. The fact that he is the co-founder of WP can be reliably sourced. The fact that Jimbo disputes this (for some reason) can also be reliably sourced. Both facts belong in the article, per WP:RS. But undue weight shouldn't be given to Jimbo's disputation by removing the fact that Sanger actually is a co-founder of WP from the article, when that fact can be reliably sourced. Mr Which??? 20:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the dispute between the 2 should be covered, what i object to is him being called the co-founder in the opening, re the undue weight you allude to because that means we are presenting it in the opening as an undisputed fact and given that it is neither undisputed nor a fact we should not mention the word founder in the opening. For me this would be a reasonable compromise that, if agreed to by others, could result in the article being unlocked. What say you. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What BLP have to do with us citing any sources that call Sanger co-founder...? Lawrence Cohen 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The dispute over this term, BLP in this article doesn't merely cover Sanger but all libving people mentioned orm hinted at. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean--you invoked BLP above this, as if BLP was a reason or consideration for why we couldn't refer to Sanger as co-founder. Which makes no sense.

In any event, we have ample sources that say Sanger was co-founder, from multiple secondary sources. Do we have any reliable sources (besides primary sources, on Wikipedia.org) that say Sanger was not co-founder? Lawrence Cohen 21:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you are confusing me, we do not need a source to not include something, and obviously. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's ludicrous on the face of it. The fact that Sanger is the co-founder of WP is verifiable by numerous reliable sources. The claim (and it is only a claim) that he is not is supported by nothing but Jimbo. The onus is on you (or Jimbo) to prove this claim, or the article is led with what is one of the more important facts about Sanger. Mr Which??? 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity - co founder or not

SqueakBox, can you explain your logic here? If this was another topic I would think you would agree that the sources are reliable and there are more than enough to close this debate. Yet, it is still going on months after it started. From my outside perspective you do not seem to be treating this objectively. What am I missing? David D. (Talk) 21:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

These sources do not make him the co-founder. What they do is illustrate that there is a dispute and these sources should be used in the bulk of the article while discussing the dispute, not to make out he was actually a co-founder when he clearly wasn't. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But its not clear he wasn't. Why are you so sure of this? David D. (Talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Two points, one is that he was paid employee of Jimmo Wales organisation whereas Wales was not a paid employee of anyu organisation or person, and the second is that wikipedia is widely known and it is widely accepted that Jimmy Wales, who is as well known as wikiepdia, was the founder. There is some controversy as to whether Sanger, who hardly anybody has heard of, was actually a co-founder, as he claims, or not, which can be included in a neutral way in the bulk of the article but to state as an undisputed fact in the opening that he is co-founder is being dishonest to our readers, violates our neutrality policy and also has BLP issues as alluded to above. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please source the controversy, using outside reliable sources. What evidence of this being disputed do we have? Lawrence Cohen 23:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that if we cannot find reliable sources then perhaps it indicates the dispute is not noteworthy of innclusion, and indeed this would be more reason and not less to not include co- in the opening, or indeed anywhere in the article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps, shaving this "controversy" with Occam's razor, it would show that it's only Jimbo that disputes this. We have plenty of sources that meet WP:V (a policy, not a guideline), showing that Sanger is co-founder. You have no sources (other than Jimbo) that say he's not. Mr Which??? 23:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I see comments from Jimbo to some newspapers, that he disputes this, and noted that Jimbo edited Sanger's article to change the statements that he was co-founder. What verifiable outside sources do we have that state (beyond repeating the primary source of Jimbo's statements) that Sanger wasn't co-founder? Lawrence Cohen 23:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability cannot trump NPOV and nor does this assertion meet WP:Notability guideline, the refs certainly do not demonstrate that this is common usage (which it most certainly isn't) and calling this fact violates our neutrality policy right down the line, injecting a minority or fringe viewpoint as fact merely because some refs agree with the assertion, and of course many possible refs do not. We simply cannot use refs to push our own OPOVs around this issue, that is to misunderstand how the project works, we must be neutral and presenting as fact that Sanger is the co-founder merely because a few people (such as himself) think he is. Certainly verifiability means we can mention this as his belief in the bulk of the article, something very different to what is there currently. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you look at the link I put in above, to the Google searches? Are you actually suggested that Sanger being co-founder is the fringe view? Based on the sourcing, the minority fringe view is the exact opposite. And you're actually suggesting that a demonstration of dozens, if not over a hundred, sources that call Sanger co-founder fails to meet notability for that statement? Where is the NPOV violation to say Sanger is co-founder based on sourcing? We have a few sources, all attributable to one single primary source (Jimbo Wales) who says Sanger was not co-founder. We have fifteen to twenty times as many sources that say Sanger was co-founder, attributed all over the place, including back to Wikipedia documents and statements. NPOV failure would be to not say Sanger was co-founder based on this information. Lawrence Cohen 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think fringe is probably the wrong word because of its connotations but I am certainly saying that the common view is that Wales is the founder, we discuss the issue excellently further down. A parallel of the present situation is that if I could find a ref that Hitler was mad then I demanded that we include this in the opening of his article merely because there are refs existing that say that he was mad. But I am not trying to suppress the controversy either, merely saying that NPOV demands we do not treat this statement as an uncontropversial fact in the opening. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It does not make the article non-neutral to point out the verifiable fact that Sanger is the co-founder (which does not invalidate the fact that Wales is often referred to as the "founder") in the lead. It's a huge part of who he is. To not lead with it lends undue weight to a unverifiable claim by Jimbo that Sanger was not the co-founder. No one claims that but him. Oh, and you. Mr Which??? 02:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the onus is always on the person who adds and never on the person who removes imformation, as I am sure you know anyway, so please, I am not going to take on board that in this case it should be the other way round. Other than to push a POV you haven't given any good reasons. We don't state what the opponents of Tony Blair and George W.Bush's numerous opponents believe (as reported in reliabkle sources) as fact in the openings of bios of these people, nor what their supporters (as reported in reliabkle sources) believe because NPOV is paramount, and it needs to be so in the opening of both Sanger and Wales as well. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right. And we've provided multiple, reliable, verifiable sources to support our view. You've provided nothing to argue against inclusion except "Jimmy says so", which isn't an argument at all. Citing articles that call Wales the founder argues for calling him the founder in his article, not against calling Sanger the co-founder. You're barking up the wrong tree here. You've lost this argument before it began, and the sooner you realize that, the better off we'll all be. As for me, since you have nothing more to add to the discussion than repeating the irrelevant (to this discussion) NPOV policy over and over, I'm finished with this discussion. I'll make certain that the information included in this article stays verifiable, but until you take a more reasonable position on the issue, I'm finished discussing it with you. Good bye, Mr Which??? 02:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And I do not object to your views being included in the article, merely as an NPOV assertion masquerading as fact in the opening, and your claim that I lost the argument before it started is simply you opining. And your claim that NPOV is irrelevant to any wikipedia article (as if we can somehow ignore it just for this article) is contradicted by the central place of NPOV in all mainspace articles. Its our only defence against people inserting their own viewpoints into articles as fact, as is happening here. And if this is your argument for refusing to discuss any further I take it you don'ty disagree with the removal of this POV assertion in the opening, as other than that some reliable sources say so you have given no reasons for why we should state this co-founder POV as fact. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

LOLOL ... I may stick around here for awhile, just for the humor factor. In all seriousness though, is there some reason you keep insisting that referring to Sanger as the "co-founder" is my "POV"? I've stated repeatedly that I don't give a damn about Sanger. I have no "POV" on Sanger. He's just some guy who helped found WP--at least according to reliable sources, as is required through WP policy at WP:V. You, on the other hand, have somehow concluded that including this important aspect about him in the lead somehow violates a WP policy (NPOV) that it does not violate. The most ironic thing about it is that, if it's not included in the lead, that would most likely violate NPOV, as it would give way too much weight to Wales' protestations. But, as I find the semantical dance you're doing quite humorous, by all means, carry on. Mr Which??? 05:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox, I found all these sources in ten seconds' Googling that assert Sanger is co-founder. Do you have any sources besides the ones in the article now, that repeat Jimbo Wale's comments disputing all these sources? Lawrence Cohen 05:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox has now taken to removing "co-" all over the site. He'll probably give this up sooner if he's reverted by multiple people, so maybe you can help me out there. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to protect these articles from his edits, but someone should probably take this to ANI, before it gets out of hand. Mr Which??? 19:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A Google search for 'Larry Sanger' (without quotes) under News gives plenty of reliable sources for Mr Sanger as a CO-founder of WP. Of the first 10, 8 refer to Mr Sanger, the other 2 have the words 'Sanger' and 'Larry' in them, but don't refer to Mr Sanger (remember, search was without quotes). Out of those 8, 5 refer directly to him as 'CO-founder' of WP, 1 refers to him as 'creator' of WP, 1 refers to him as "former de facto editor in chief", and the last states that he "helped start Wikipedia". Repeating the search but with quotes gives us similar results. Looks to me like there is widespread recognition of Mr Sanger as a CO-Founder of WP. Malbolge (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-founder is referenced. Please review the reference section. Both Sanger and Wales were identified as co-founders as early as September 2001 anyhow. Quack Guru 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In accordance with what Wikipedia policy or reference was this edit attributed to? Your edit did not match your edit summary. Please discuss. Quack Guru 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this edit improve the article? Quack Guru 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That edit is in Spanish, Quack, and if you wish to dipute it please go to the Spanish wikipedia talk page, we cannot discuss my edits to es wikipedia here. Malboge is, IMO, correct. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

We can still discuss your allegations here. Do you agree with your edit or after reviewing the references agree with the current version. Quack Guru 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, of course we discuss the en version here. I would prefer no mention of the word co-founder in the opening though it certainly could be mentioned as a disputed fact in the bulk of the text. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you prefer no mention of it in the lead. It meets the lead criteria, and passes the notability test. Did you review the references? Quack Guru 23:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No I don't like the refs. Well the first ref is great for the body of the text where we should say that Sanger disputes not being co-founder, the second ref is fine for proving he was involved in the starting up of wikipedia but could equally be used with very different wording and I don't think the third ref is relevant to this particular issue, its about Citizendium. Indeed it looks to me like he got interviewed in San Diego and told them he was a co-founder and they believed him, and I don't dispute that he thinks he was a co-founder and indeed propagates this information. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of references which clearly identify both as the co-founders. There are also historical references such as The New York Times 2001 reference. Quack Guru 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hidden external link

Resolved

WP:EL says "External links should typically not be in the body of an article. Include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox.". This article has a link to the Citizendium FAQ, in the body of the article, formatted to look just like an internal link. It should be moved to the External Links section of the article, or perhaps the References section so that the reader can find it via footnote, or at the very least it should be formatted to look like an external link, in my opinion. People clicking on plain blue links in Wikipedia articles expect to find themselves on other Wikipedia pages (at least, I do), not on some other website. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I will look into it soon. Quack Guru 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you fixed it. Thanks!! --Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

A Wikipedian tampered with the reference templates. It was vandalism to the references. Check it out!. Quack Guru 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reared vs Raised

Reared is a better use of English than the word "Raised." See here: [10]--Trulexicon (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reared sometimes refers to an animal. He is not an animal. He is a human being. This may be a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Quack on this one. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite aware he is a human being; there are some sources which use the term "reared" refering to an animal, although I've seen many sources shuch as the book provided above which use the term rear for a human as well. There are cases in which the term rear is inapproprate, such as the term being used outside one's formative years; for example Larry being born in Alaska but being reared in Seattle (and was 17 at the time he moved). In that case yes that would be an inapporprate use of the term reared.--Trulexicon (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The word "reared" is a BPL problem. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

However, My intent is not call Sanger an "animal," its just I feel word "reared" is better English than the word "raised;" overall I think most people would understand reared is better wording than raised.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If your intent is not to call Sanger names (reared refers to an animal) then I hope you will stop adding the word reared. Please! QuackGuru (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss

The reverts are going back and forth faster than a toddler on a see-saw. Please use the talk page to discuss. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=193187727 The fact tags were added to the 7th reference. The reference is there. The reference is the citation. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jul/13/media.newmedia Here is the 7th reference to support the text. The ref is currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The facts tags are inappropriate. The text is a direct quote from the reference. Please read the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   List at the bottom looks a bit weird. Could do with paragraphing, but I won't fail it on this alone.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   Criterion 2 passed with flying colours.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Points 1) and 3) in the list tip the scales in Citizendium's favour slightly. How about merging those points together to make something more neutral? Looks fine now.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Placing on hold. Will ^(talk) 14:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Passed. Will ^(talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! —QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger#Origins_of_Wikipedia

Wales, who is the current de facto leader of Wikipedia, has publicly disputed since 2004 that Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia. Wales described Sanger as having been merely a subordinate employee, and stated of the co-founder issue, "I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable."

The body of the text explains the story. It smacks point to add extra material to the lead. This article is about Larry Sanger and not Wales' view. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How about something like he asserts he is co-founder, I agree we should try to avoid mention of Wales in the opening but am unhappy with simply leaving the co-founder as if it were undisputed fact, eg we could say "and he says he was co-founder of its successor" (my addition in italics). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Co-founder is well sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is undisputed fact. Show me anyone other than Wales himself disputing it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One half of all people in a position to know clearly dispute it. How you go from that to "undisputed fact", I don't follow. The whole thing is idiotic exactly because the phrase "founder" is ambiguous. They don't seem to actually disagree on any of the specifics of who did what. They just disagree, and legitimately so, on how to describe those specifics, because the phrase "founder" can mean a range of things. The solution is quite obviously to state neutrally the agreed facts, and omit the ambiguous descriptor (i.e. "founder"). However, I do think it is good for Jimmy's soul to see warriors winning the day through sheer mulish tenacity on this article, as happens on so very many other articles. Gresham's law of editors. I also find wikitruth somewhat amusing, and so won't quarrel with their likely emissary (first edit). 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.65.24 (talk)

It's still undisputed fact. Even so, there's plenty of explanation within the article itself, and it doesn't look very good to pollute the head with that kind of POV-ridden, sourceless statement. Celarnor (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, Bramletsock. It's plainly disputed. How then is it undisputed? English, do you speak it? If it weren't disputed, there would be no quarrel. Also, if people were interested in neutrality, there would be no quarrel, because it's easy enough to stick to the facts without references to the disputed word. People are interested in pushing a point of view -- that's the only fact in evidence here. Let them; I don't care; I just can't stand the hypocrisy without pointing it out. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, Jim Wales sock. I don't see the problem here. The controversy is right there in the article, I just don't see what the point would be of pointing it out in every other paragraph. Celarnor (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the references: But if you look back at an old email Sanger sent to those working on Nupedia, Wikipedia's predecessor, you can see that if anyone is the sole founder of Wikipedia, it's Larry Sanger. According to an email leaked to The Associated Press, the chairman of the Wikimedia Board describes Jimbo Wales as someone who is "constantly trying to rewrite the past." All the best, QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There are many sources confirming to WP:NPOV + WP:RS + WP:V & WP:ATT policies. For example, take a quick look at this website. Sanger, Larry. "My role in Wikipedia (links)". larrysanger.org. Larry Sanger. Retrieved 2008-03-08. At the website, there are plenty of references clearly stating co-founder. This should be easy to understand. For your information, Wikipedia is not the venue for DISRUPTION per WP:WEIGHT + WP:BATTLE + WP:NOT#ADVOCATE & WP:GAME policies. It isn't my rule: it's the community's WP:CON. End of discussion! QuackGuru (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you actually want to end a discussion, it is extremely unwise to crow "end of discussion" after repeating the same tired old lines for the billionth time. A better way to end the discussion would be to actually respond to the point. The point was that "founder" is ambiguous and that is the entire nexus of the dispute. If you care to carefully define exactly what "founder" means at the first use, that would be a reasonable solution. If you prefer to avoid the word as ambigous, that would be reasonable. Beating your chest and shouting "I win", while linking a litany of policy completely tangential to the point is not "end of discussion". Though, I'll end my part in it now. As I said, seeing up close and personal the shitpot of cranks and warriors that Wikipedia is, is good for Jimmy's soul. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "founder" is vague. We can't use that word. The sources say co-founder. The key is understanding that co-founder is highly referenced supported by primary sources on Wikipedia from the early years, it is also supported by historical references, and Wales never disputed the early press articles describing him as a co-founder when Sanger was still part of the project. The dispute is between Wales and the historcial facts. We can't rewrite history. Revisionism smacks point. End of story. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a point in regards to this particular article, but I would like to make the case for ignoring whatever ramblings are made from IP address 130.56.65.24. This person has been vandalizing my page and undoing my changes for days now, for no reason whatsoever than to cause a fight. You can not assume goodwill on the part of this person. Just my 2c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helixweb (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy founded What?

All you who believe that Jimmy Wales founded Wikipedia, please read this letter. It clearly shows that not only did Wales not originate the idea of using a Wiki for an encyclopedia, he actually thought it wasn't a good idea initially. But he can take credit for one thing he did found; the Cabal, its origins lie in this e-document. That is the simple truth, not trolling. Perhaps it constitutes original research, but it is not in article space.--70.185.113.212 (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cabal of which Jimbo speaks in 2001 is what we now call administrators. QuackGuru (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

TINC Mr. Guru.--Trulexicon (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that was a much later and different discussion, in which Jimmy made his infamous no big deal comment.[11]--70.185.113.212 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to claim that Wales didn't found wikipedia when we have multiple sources that consider him the founder is a bit of a non-starter. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Meyers, Peter (September 20, 2001). "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-09."I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. SqueakBox, maybe you should take a closer look at the historical references such as The New York Times piece. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary as well as historical secondary sources say or describe Larry Sanger as a co-founder. Agreed? QuackGuru (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert Wars

I made additional edits to article which called Larry Sanger the Assistant Founder of wikipedia, however I decided to revert myself because I want hear what Jimbo has to say about my compromise before I edit on this article; I think Assistant Founder is a better word to use than Co-Founder, Founder...it is also more respectful to Sanger's key role in helping to "found" wikipedia (without de-basing Jimbo's more important role) By the way Quack, to say that Sanger was reared isn't an attempt to mock him or make fun of him, it's just I feel the word "reared is better english than raised.--Trulexicon (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The verifiable sources say co-founder. The term "assistant founder" is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

wow i learned a lot here Uconnstud (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed this from the article...

The Citizendium community is polite and friendly.

It's a little unencyclopedic ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions for a rewrite? QuackGuru 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the first sentence

The current first sentence

Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born July 16, 1968) is an American philosopher; professor; and the creator of Citizendium, an expert-guided encyclopedia.

is quite misleading, and recently, reporters and others have asked me if I am a professor. I am not. In fact, "professor" usually means people who currently have the title "professor." While I have taught college both before and after getting my Ph.D., I have never held any "professor" title; I have always been "instructor" and that sort of thing. I have not taught college since 2005, anyway.

Also, the main reason that there is an article in Wikipedia about me is that I co-founded Wikipedia. So, this should be stated first--not that I am philosopher. While I do consider myself a philosopher and I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and while I am flattered that this is mentioned first, I am sorry to say that I am not really known as a philosopher. Along those lines, I am far better known as a thinker and speaker about the Internet. You can confirm this for yourself by looking at larrysanger.org.

As to the Citizendium, I would not describe it first and foremost as "an expert-guided encyclopedia" but as an open encyclopedia project that requires real names and makes a role for experts. There are many other expert-guided encyclopedias, but CZ is actually open and collaborative in a way that most other expert-guided online encyclopedias are not. However you describe it briefly, I dislike reducing CZ's identity to the short phrase "expert-guided," simply because that description is, used by itself, actually misleading--it suggests that we're top-down and not open to the general public, which is factually wrong. --Larry Sanger (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Philosopher? Professor?

If he himself has outlined why he does not meet the criteria to be accurately labeled a philosopher and or a professor why are my attempts to edit those labels out undone and then blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.132.167.157 (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Once a philosopher always a philosopher! Professor is no longer in the lead. The first sentence has been improved. QuackGuru 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

protection

I have protected this page because of the high risk of vandalism. If you think it should be open discuss it in the talk page.--Ahmediq152 (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. The page was actually not proected. The template you added simple notifies readers that the page is proected but does not protect the page itself. Had it actually been protected I could not have removed it. If you want protection please go to WP:RFP. --76.69.167.70 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Expert Peer Review process (or lack of such) for Science related articles

Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ? Thanks ARP Apovolot (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Co-founder

Sanger clearly claims to be co-founder but there is no evidence that he is considered to be so in Nov 2008. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This edit and this edit is not NPOV. QuackGuru 18:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

OR

I come back from an extended wiki-vacation to find this article still problematic :< I wish a compromise could hashed out about the founding issue. --Trulexicon (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The WP:OR was problematic. I fixed it. QuackGuru 05:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I know it is! The entire article should deleted an re-written from scratch....I just put Assistant Founder to throw Jimbo's side of the debate a bone..--Trulexicon (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

OR is still or. Anyhow, I fixed it. QuackGuru 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead should not be used to push any side of a POV. What is the purpose of adding the paid employee thingy to the lead. QuackGuru 20:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually POV says we should present all notable POVs, what we cannot do is mention Sanger's pov in the opening and not Wales', either both or neither would be an acceptable solution. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is notable what you added to the lead and it is not supported by the references presented in the lead. QuackGuru 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox is clearly unhappy with mentioning Larry Sanger in the lead of the Wales' article but is very happy with mentioning Jimmy Wales in the lead of the Sanger's article. Hmm... QuackGuru 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed wales' name from the opening. I'll look for a ref. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What is notable about being a paid employee and what is the purpose of trying to get Wales' point of view about the paid employee thingy in the lead? QuackGuru 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to counterbalance the assertion that he was the co-founder and to ensure our readers do not think Sanger was an equal founder with Wales re financing the project, which is a critical factor in its founding, eg Sanger could not have founded it alone due to lack of money. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What you call counterbalancing is not NPOV. The money issue is irrelevant to the lead. Sanger could of founded it alone. It does not require a lot money to start a new project. Without using his own money, Sanger founded CZ. QuackGuru 20:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it had cost him no money he would still haver had to eat and it is well known that it was Wales' money that allowed him to "retire" and start the project. Stating Sanger's claim as fact is problematic. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to make claims like that. QuackGuru 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Including "as a paid employee of its other founder" is not notable and is irrelevant for the lead. QuackGuru 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The newly added text is disputed. QuackGuru 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this employee thingy notable to Sanger. QuackGuru 04:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was reached on Talk:Jimmy Wales some time ago regarding the co-foundership. There is no need to reach a second, separate consensus here. He's the co-founder, not assistant-founder (which I don't think is even a real term), and not "because he was a paid employee of the other founder". That's just a mess. He's the co-founder, so just put it in the article citing it as it is in Jimmy Wales, and stop warring over it. لennavecia 16:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox is trying to change consensus and is very happy with mentioning "the other founder" in the lead here. He should be equally as happy with mentioning "the other founder" in the lead of the Jimmy Wales article. QuackGuru 21:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I argue that Wales is more notable and is currently known as the founder so deserves more mention but we could try to find ways of avoiding the co-founder issue in the opening, and we need to for NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

He is the co-founder, not "because he was a paid employee of the other founder". The part about because "he was a paid employee of the other founder" may be a WP:SYN violation and an WP:OR violation. Because he was an employee is irrelevant to the co-foundership and the citation does not verify the claim. QuackGuru 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the claim that he is co-founder is a POV, its not a fact. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant to the discussion here. According to the references presented (including primary and secondary sources) Larry Sanger is Wikipedia's co-founder.

He is the co-founder, not "because he was a paid employee of the other founder". The part about because "he was a paid employee of the other founder" may be a WP:SYN violation and an WP:OR violation. Because he was an employee is irrelevant to the co-foundership and the citation does not verify the claim. Please verify the claim added to the lead or remove it. Violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYN, and WP:OR is a serious matter. Please show an not assert your claim that you added to the lead by verifying it and demonstrating that it meets the WP:LEAD guidelines. See WP:V. QuackGuru 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, I am not claiming he is not co-founder because that is my personal opinion but in order to fulfill our NPOV policy which demands the expression of relevant points of view in a balanced way. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You have ignored NPOV and other policies. QuackGuru 22:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The reality is absolutely to the contrary, I am enforcing blp against your claims that Sanger as co-founder is fact in the same way as H2O being water is fact, which is not the case. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You have added text to the lead that is unverified. You have violated multiple Wikipedia policies. QuackGuru 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Would it hwelp to provide an internal link to Wales' comment as Jimbo on the matter, as it is his POV I am trying to place in the text, making it not OR either (ie I never thought this, I read it in Wales' statements on the subject. And if the opening to this article is skewed then so is the opening to the wales article on the same subject22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Jimbo's POV is not notable to Sanger. Trying to add Jimbo's POV is POV. Anyhow, Jimbo's view is considered a WP:FRINGE view. QuackGuru 22:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, suggest a neutral opening thast does not contain an uncontested Sanger POV (that he is co-founder), and your assertion that Wales' view is fringe is unproven and IMO untrue as well (as far as truth exists on the subject). It is arguable that Sanger's co- claim, givent eh immensely greater public profile of wales, is self-promotion and thus of itself fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not okay. Sanger is the co-founder and it is verified. QuackGuru 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It is verified as an opinion but not as a fact, and calling the counterbalance POV fringe is unhelpful in terms of ensuring the balanced article we both seek. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The co-founder fact is verified by secondary sources in accordance with WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:V policies as demanded by the community. QuackGuru 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The anti-NPOV text recently added to the lead is not verified as an opinion or a fact. QuackGuru 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SqueakBox, stop reviving the same tired discussions with the same tired arguments. This consensus has already been reached. It is verifiable fact that they are co-founders. Jimbo's assertion goes against sources. Verifiability, not truth, although I believe it is both verifiable fact and truth. All substantive evidence backs co-foundership. Jimbo's claims are therefore fringe, as nothing substantive supports the claim. لennavecia 04:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Whose tired? I only came back here when QG started editing again, and given the urgency of blp I fail to see how anyone could possibly be tired of debating this important issue. Its also verifiable that Wales is the founder, which is more than the Sanger camp can say of him. I think you need to justify that anything Wales whatsoever says about wikipedia is fringe, sounds like OR to me05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

Who started what again? Don't look at me. My old friend started things rolling again. I hoped by now editors would realize we can't rewrite history. QuackGuru 06:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired. I'm sure others are tired. Your argument, SqueakBox, is tired. Wales as sole-founder is not verifiable. Some news sources say it because he says it. But there's no actual evidence that disputes co-foundership. Again, we've been over this. And at no point did I say that "anything Wales whatsoever says about Wikipedia is fringe". Now you're just being ridiculous. لennavecia 06:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia, I thought my argument was as fresh as toothpaste. Nor am I claiming he was the "sole" founder, just the founder, which is what he is described as in all 2008 mainstream descriptions; we cannot mislead our readers and justify ourselves based on a reading of policy. I am amused, though, at your comment that because Wales claims to be the sole founder and some media have picked up on this that somehow because Wales, a highly notable individual, says it is so that it must not be so. You claimed that some of what Wales says about wikipedia is fringe whereas I am arguing that "nothing" he says and that is reliably sourced re wikipedia is fringe. I fail to see your point, or how exactly I am allegedly being ridiculous, or why exactly you have issues with Wales, but your earlier claim that the community will support your what seems to be a grudge is not appropriate.

QG, your argument re rewriting history is profoundly wrong. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales is best known for evangelizing Wikipedia, the open-source, nonprofit encyclopedia he co-founded in 2001.[12]

The encyclopedia's huge fan base became such a drain on Bomis's resources that Mr Wales, and co-founder Larry Sanger, thought of a radical new funding model – charity.[13]

Larry Sanger said that "Having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out".[14][15]

QuackGuru 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice scarecrow, SqueakBox. Anything else I've said that you want to exaggerate or completely skew? If I'm editing because of what seems to be a grudge, you're editing because of what seems to be a desire to be Wales new BFF. I think, however, the reality of the situation is we're both working to make the articles conform to our differing interpretations of policy; and my view is that community shares my interpretations, as evidenced by previous consensus on the matter. لennavecia 01:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

BFF with Wales. That is funny. Actually I am here as a part of general BLP work, and my desire is to see Wales and all living people treated fairly. My own experience is that only a minority of users have any interest in the subject but that within those interested there is a degree of fanaticism, Bramble Abercrombie being a good example of that. There has not been any serious consensus on the issue, ever, which is why we are still here arguing it, and the idea that we have had consensus and that the consensus is what you think is the strawman argument here. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Way back in 2004 the first sentence says cofounder of Wikipedia but Wales removed the part about conceived the project. But Wales originally wrote in October of 2001 that "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software." When Wales edited the article why did he remove the conceived part but didn't remove the co-founder part. I think this is interesting. Thanks. QuackGuru 03:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, SqueakBox. Stop changing the articles without consensus. لennavecia 03:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia. Wales and others(see above) can contest this, but facts are facts. Again, if Sanger was still with the project and chummy with Wales, this wouldn't even been an issue, but as time goes on, some want to rewirte history which is very dangerous for a serious encyclopedia. --Tom 21:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added Wales to the lead since both should be mentioned since they are both co-founders. I see that Bill Gates and Paul Allen do the same thing which makes perfect sense. Also see the google co-founders. --Tom 16:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought is was decided not to add the other founder to the lead of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I made this change to remove the additional detail from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Did you read the other bios of co-founders? This is not a "minor" detail and should stay in both bios. --Tom 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not important or necessary to add Wales to the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason why?--Tom 21:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is about Sanger and not Wales. QuackGuru (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Read above and check the archives. There's more of the battle on the talk page of Jimmy Wales and the archive thereof. There are some who are wholly opposed to having Sanger mentioned in Wales bio, and will battle over it until everyone else is frustrated beyond all. As a balance, Wales is not mentioned in Sangers, for consistency. If you wish to revive this discussion once more, read up before doing so. The last consensus on the matter was reached a few weeks ago. لennavecia 05:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)