User talk:Larry Sanger

Original Archive

Tucker Carlson interview

Just watching your interview with Tucker Carlson, and it's really good! Stadt67 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	I think this looks really cool. Lots of solid ideas here and I hope that WP:THESIS9 is looked at in a way which might then bring about some of the others. Seems to me that would be where we start. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Fantastic work, particularly regarding sources and bias. With Wikipedia's reputation already faltering, I hope the broader community takes these proposals seriously. Dan.Toler (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Larry Sanger

Welcome back @Larry Sanger ! :) Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Efforts to Get Wikipedia Back on Track

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Saw your plan in The Free Press article. Thank you for your efforts to put Wikipedia back on track after its derailment. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I'm new on editing and using Wiki 'actively', but I want to endorse my deepest respect for your proposals :3

Murielps (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone above!

I appreciate the warm "welcome back." Larry Sanger (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sanger Young Reader Program

Awhile ago I'd recommended that you, Jimbo, and WMF could "heal" a bit if WMF set up a program to both teach and institutionalize teaching very young children to read, which seems an interest of yours. Since I've not mentioned it here thought this might be a good time. Would you be open to having such a program named for you or becoming active in it if it evolves? The concept is that Wikipedia is meant to be read, and that teaching very young children to read (flashcards, putting in the hours, etc.) provides a foundation for lifelong learning, mental adventure, and possible real-life accomplishments, such a program would be a good fit for the foundation to both fund and sustain. Thanks. Just an idea for now. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you know that I've already written one of the more prominent of such programs? See https://readingbear.org/ This digitizes the method I used with my boys when they were toddlers. The method works well, and I would like it to be open sourced. I would be interested in such a WMF program, if it had any chance of being of reasonably good quality. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Took a quick dive into Reading Bear (needs a Wikipedia page), interesting approach and will get back to it. By "program" I meant WMF funding and helping develop an entire structure of methods, uses, and real-world teaching on a large scale, as well as convincing parents that early reading gives a child much needed and important brain and mental-image development. This would be appropriate for a foundation devoted to, breaking it down to its initial component, reading. I think your essay helped in what I've seen as a necessary healing process, with some editors using its presentation to go after the editor and not the topic (venting anger), and, to go full circle, at least one more friendly societal-changing collabs between you, Jimbo Wales, and WMF may be needed - this young readers initiative being an attempt to fill that while benefiting overall humanity and individual children. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:THESIS1" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:THESIS1 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2 § Wikipedia:THESIS1 until a consensus is reached. JMWt (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That didn't work out very well, did it, Sophisticatedevening? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 17:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the following topic areas have also been designated as contentious topics:

• the Arab–Israeli conflict (WP:CT/A-I)
• articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles (WP:CT/BLP)
• complementary and alternative medicine (WP:CT/CAM)
• climate change (WP:CT/CC)
• COVID-19, broadly construed (WP:CT/COVID)
• pseudoscience and fringe science (WP:CT/CF)
• gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them (WP:CT/GG)
• the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups (WP:CT/SA)

Thank you. — Newslinger talk 17:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Which pages do you mean? You don't say. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Larry Sanger, any edit that overlaps with a contentious topic on any Wikipedia page is covered under these procedures. Per Wikipedia:Contentious topics, "this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic". The above template is a standard message sent to editors to ensure that they are aware of these procedures. — Newslinger talk 20:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi. You haven't answered my question. What is the relevance of your remarks to my work here? Also, should I take myself to be warned by you? Are you an administrator? Should I feel threatened and rebuked? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent edit at Special:Permalink/1314044675 added content that overlaps with the contentious topics listed in this discussion. While I am an administrator, this is not pertinent to contentious topic alerts, as any editor may post a contentious topic alert pursuant to the conditions in Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics. Contentious topic alerts are not warnings, but informational messages; they are not intended to make you "feel threatened and rebuked". If you would like to opt out of receiving contentious topic alerts for other topic areas, you may apply the {{Contentious topics/aware}} template on your user talk page and specify the topic areas that you do not wish to receive alerts for, but please keep in mind that the template does not yet support community-authorized sanctions. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you didn't simply say User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses? What is the purpose and use of being so indirect and bureaucratic? Do you see why this might come across as threatening and rebuking to someone without his wits about him? Larry Sanger (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I use diffs when discussing specific edits because diffs are immutable. Special:Permalink/1314044675 was the very first edit to User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, so I used a permanent link because Special:Diff/1314044675 does not show any content when viewed from the mobile website. Contentious topic alerts have been implemented since 2014 (when it was known as discretionary sanctions alerts), and retained when discretionary sanctions became contentious topics in 2022. Editors who participate in contentious topics receive contentious topic alerts on a regular basis, and very few of these editors complain, as "This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing" makes it clear that the alert is an informational message. If you feel that the alert is "threatening and rebuking" and have a constructive suggestion to improve it, then feel free to present your suggestion on a village pump page. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I'm also confused. Do you consider some of the theses to be US politics related? This is a stretch IMO. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bri: Content such as "In American politics, articles must not favor either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, or be written as if there were no third parties (such as the Libertarian Party, Green Party, or a new 'America Party')" in Special:Permalink/1314044675 is indeed related to American politics and covered by WP:CT/AP. — Newslinger talk 18:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I find this policy to be puerile and insidious, and part of the policy creep that implementing Thesis 9 would reverse. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome to make your case on a village pump page. There is already a discussion about User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses. — Newslinger talk 17:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Per your demand on X that "Wikipedia" respond to your Martin Luther cosplay lest you run to Congress for legislation

Here's what I agree with:

• End IP editing.
• End blacklists of sources.
• Establish a simple reader feedback mechanism, although not necessarily a vapid thumbs up/thumbs down that you no doubt envision. The bit about an "open source AI rating system" is unintelligible.
• Embrace inclusionism.

Here's what I disagree with:

• Pretty much everything else.

I find it ironic that a person who has spent so much time banning perceived ideological enemies off of your Elon social network account is now putting themselves forward as the great adherent of intellectual pluralism. I also find the list of Wikipedians you "sure wouldn't want anyone to dox, nudge nudge wink wink" to be intentionally threatening and vicious and par for the course.

Very truly yours, Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR, responding for "Wikipedia" //// Carrite (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Tim, I confess I'm a little surprised when you say you can support some of these proposals. I'm sincerely glad you have taken the time to say so.

I would say that you might want to read this short section about an open source AI rating system, which you might have skipped. I spent a month last December-January programming something very much like such a system, so I know it's not only intelligible, it's a good idea and quite feasible.

There is nothing remotely ironic about personally blocking the participants in digital struggle session. These are the enemies of pluralism, of course. Pluralism involves a desire to see many different views fairly represented, so that people are free to make up their own minds for themselves.

As to your accusation about doxxing, I find that to be an obvious violation of WP:AGF. I added that because I knew that people would accuse me of suggesting that the Power 62 be doxxed. I am quite sincerely saying I do not want them to be doxxed, and I will thank you to not make the mistake again.

But again, thanks for taking the time to express (very partial) support for some of the proposals. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Larry. Thanks for responding. There are absolutely some things on your list that are reasonable. Please use ordinary WP processes to further change in that direction. I'd particularly like to see IP editing get the boot ("register to edit" instead) and to eliminate the entire notion of "inherently unreliable sources."

Feel free to file a complaint at either AN/I or AN against me for my "obvious violation" of AGF. I contend that as a leading internet spokesman for Team Trump and given their decade-long tradition of death threats and IRL harassment of their "enemies within" (quoting the cult leader), you knew exactly what you were doing when you constructed your "please please please do not dox these anonymous wikipedians!!!!" list. —Tim ///Carrite (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Tim, as co-founder, I have taken it upon myself to push Wikipedia in a direction where there are saner processes for change. If you will look at, for example, theses 1 and 9, you might notice that a central part of this project is to bring Wikipedia to its senses about just how dysfunctional it has been precisely in its "ordinary WP processes." I am mounting considered criticisms of the very "ordinary WP processes" that you are recommending I follow. You know and I know that there is very little chance of anything changing according to "ordinary WP processes": that is the point of the "problem" section of essay 9. Sometimes radical reform requires changes of process, such as an legislative assembly.

Also, I would appreciate it if you not insult me further by patronizingly instructing me about how to report you. Suffice to say I can figure it out if I want to go that route, and don't need your advice. As to your accusation about doxxing, that is speculation about my motives. This is not permitted. And calling me "a leading internet spokesman for Team Trump" accords me much much greater influence than I have, believe me. In any event, the fact that you think this is somehow relevant to thesis 6 is very telling indeed. It's almost as if you're saying that the Power 62 is, perhaps, uniformly aligned with the other side? Is that what you're assuming? Larry Sanger (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahem, you're the one singing the praises of Ted Cruz and making threats to run to the Trumpist Congress for "carve outs" of the law expressly to punish WMF if your Too Long; Didn't Read essay isn't adopted. Please don't pretend that your sudden presence here after two decades in devoid of political intent.

Now, that said, if you're actually serious about reforming Wikipedia instead of engaging in a political performance for your pals like Tucker Carlson, I would suggest you focus upon the fundamental problem — the banning of sources outright by a clique of political gameplayers, rather than WP following the valid historical process of considering the veracity of edits on a case-by-case basis. THAT'S the big issue, is it not? Pick your battle, make your case, and see if the great inert object can be moved.

I personally would like to see IP editing go down the drain first; and there is actually arguably a better chance of getting that through, now that WMF is starting to understand that IPs help bad state actors track down and repress Wikipedians. They've been trying (with little success) to come up with a way of "anonymizing" IP addresses. The obvious solution, which bucks two decades of tradition, is to get rid of IP editing all together. No IPs in the edit history — problem solved.

I think the question of anonymity is a battle that can't be won. Given the terrorist tendencies of the ultra-nationalist American right, that's not even a battle that should be fought in the current political climate.

Like I say, if you're serious about reforming WP, focus and organize. You might be surprised to find allies in unexpected places if your motives are clean. But forgive me for doubting very much that's what's driving this particular effort. Carrite (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't read or respond to that, Tim, until you have edited it so that it is in line with WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

How could we end IP editing @Carrite? Where would that discussion start? Do you want to initiate it? 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ahri Boy (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, as you can see, the page was speedily kept, Ahri Boy. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Portraits of you

Dr. Sanger, all free pictures of you are about 20 or more years old. I was wondering if you would be interested in uploading a more recent self portrait under a free license? 3df (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Eventually I'll get around to this. I'd be happy to work with a professional photographer. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

My favorite pic in the Larry Sanger Commons category is File:Kate Upton and Harley Upton.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes yes, I'm very sure Kate Upton has a pic of me on her wall! Don't tell my wife! LOL Larry Sanger (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Remember you will have to ask the photographer to licence the picture under a suitable license. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 13:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC).

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you. AhmedDjoudi (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I'm a little later here, but thank you for having the courage to put out your 9 theses. I hope the wikipedia community actually sincerely tries to help resolve the issues you have raised in your essay even if they don't use your specific solutions. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully,

I disagree. Guylaen (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to say

Firstly, welcome back. I'm glad someone finally brought up number eight, indefinite blocking was once a reality for me. I was one of few who stayed around, and indef blocking can scare off editors who can be very good if and when they came back. I also think WMF needs a more clear legislation. Our volunteers are very good, but we need people who can run the project as a job. I can't say anything positive about six. Crats and CUs don't deserve to be harassed off-site because they did something one user did not like. And what would they be held accountable for? Running a check on someone with a lot of evidence of socking? If Wikipedia were to implement this (which I myself very much oppose), I think it should be limited to the Arb Com. I hope you see this, and welcome back again. CREditzWiki (Talk to me!!) 14:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Opinion, please

Can you comment here? This list is meant to encourage editors to take the perhaps somewhat scary step of nominating an article to be a featured article. Many of the articles missing attributed nominators are from the brilliant prose days, and were nominated/added to that page by you at a time when there was not much of a review process. The bot that maintains the list notices FAs and FFAs that are missing nomination history. If I add you as the nominator for these articles you will suddenly have quite a few stars on this list (mostly FFAs at this point). I would very much appreciate hearing your opinion about this. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Done. Not sure what more to say there. Interesting from a historical standpoint perhaps, but I doubt it matters much. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of discussion involving Thesis 8

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding revisiting indefinite blocking, which is related to your eighth thesis. The section is titled "Removing all active indefinite blocks older than 20 years." I am leaving a message here in case you didn't get the notification from my mention. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

give me your opinion on my idea

I've been thinking about the ultimate knowledge-based OSS platform for a long time, and I've come up with a concept that's both reproducible and universal. I'd like to discuss it with you to make it a reality. How can I contact you? I prefer emailIm siryang (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I LOVE THE NINE THESES

THIS WAS SO DESPERATELY NEEDED!!!! 12.228.48.72 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I like them a lot myself. They were carefully chosen for maximal plausibility. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Please create an account then. This project of reform can't work if it is simply supported by IP editors. Wikipedia needs more people like you. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Login reverem banned

What? 185.163.26.18 (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You’ll have to explain. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales discussion... and joint interview?

Thanks again Larry for writing your 9-theses. I wanted to mention to you that I have been having a conversation with Jimbo Wales over at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Nine Theses, and it occurred to me that you BOTH need to agree to even talk. I do not know what the right venue might look like. I suggested that since he had gone on Lex Fridman in 2023, that maybe something like that would work, but I think ANY venue that you both agreed to would be fascinating and productive. He does not seem open to having a conversation unfortunately, but I wanted to ask you both, and ideally get a conversation started on this front about how to IMPROVE (not abolish!) Wikipedia. @Jimbo Wales does appear very open to the idea of improvements in his New York Times piece with Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and I think you should give him the respect and deference of having a "kind and thoughtful" conversation (as he likes to say, I see those words "kind and thoughtful" all over his interviews). Anyway, I really appreciate it and think that the whole world would benefit from the two of you speaking on this matter, no matter the venue or host. Maybe let him pick the host if that would be agreeable @Jimbo Wales? Iljhgtn (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t rule it out. I can’t issue a blanket “yes” (need to consider details), but generally it would be interesting and I’d probably be on board, depending on circumstances. Somebody like Lex might work as an interviewer/moderator. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Casting of aspersions at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses#Replies to Jimmy Wales' remarks about 9T

Hi Larry. If you are not going to provide any evidence, I'd ask you strike your aspersions in that thread (such as They can—and I think, do—take money under the table from people who want things "fixed." Doubtless, many work for Wikipedia PR firms), as they are considered personal attacks (see WP:CASTING). Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I made no specific accusations. I was making a claim about general groups. Are you really saying you think some Wikipedia editors don't take money to "fix" things in articles? There is no shortage of evidence that this is a common practice. I didn't accuse anyone in particular. Therefore, I repudiate your accusation. Larry Sanger (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

if you think there's "no shortage of evidence that [undisclosed paid editing] is a common practice", i don't believe it would be hard to provide said evidence, so it'd be a good idea to stop using circular reasoning (in this case, "it is because i say it is, and i say it is because it is") to skirt around a request that you yourself say would be easy to fulfill. additionally, the fact that you're not naming any specific people (this specific time) doesn't magically make it not an aspersion or an attack against the groups you're very explicitly accusing

for example, i could say something like "some certain editors have been acting totally sus in [insert topic here]" with no evidence, and it would very clearly be an aspersion against a group, especially if the group was easily identifiable by just seeing whatever discussion(s) i point to, regardless of whether or not i directly named them. vague claims aren't a shield here, especially when they're not actually all that vague consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I gave evidence in Essay 6. Moreover, there are many Wikipedia pages documenting this. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

simply put, no you didn't. you provided evidence that editors (admins and stuff included) aren't all 100% serious about everything all the time (which is at best an argument that you're a party pooper, which i guess is just weird), that people use wikipedia as a tertiary source (nice-a), that llms use it for training (not-a nice) that admins involved in operation orangemoody took action... uh... against a paid editing ring (you know that's the literal exact opposite of what you're trying to prove, right?), that a journalist who reached out to you was bamboozled (sad case, but effectively a non-sequitur), that some editors put limits on the use of primary sources (nice-a), that people sometimes feel the "need" to hire others to "fix" stuff (if this is your chekhov's gun, specifically under the modern definition, i'll get back to it soon), that the wmf takes lawsuits seriously (nice-a), and that people do smear campaigns and stuff (ignore the part where action is taken against those, tee hee). none of those are what you're accusing admins (and those 62 guys) of, and the one that looks the most like it is the exact kind of thing admins exist to deal with as proven by the operation orangemoody article you provided

tripling down with the argument that "we can't conclusively prove that i'm right unless we dox a bunch of people, but i'm definitely right" over evidence that is unrelated, misinterpreted, or actively detrimental to your case isn't going to work. if you couldn't provide immutable evidence of administrators and wmf staff actively engaging in paid editing and getting away with it, we can start wrapping things up. an unfounded suspicion is as usable a reason to argue for that as "it'd be funny"

that is to say, since this won't go anywhere productive, with you actively defending aspersions and lying about their sources, i'm taking this to ani in a while consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Simply put, yes I did. The argument is simple, and I am not going to say it again. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

okay, what would be the source(s) in the essay that you feel prove(s) irrefutably that admins, bureaucrats, and other such people regularly do paid editing, not limited to taking bribes, and then get away with it? i'm willing to assume that i just somehow missed an entire paragraph showing a list of those events having undeniably happened or something of the sort consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

And about the ANI thing: So it's your view that disagreements about what I have and have not accomplished in an essay on my user page, and my failure to admit something to you personally about such an essay, on my user talk page, are grounds to report me to the hall monitors? (When, just by the way, it is precisely the probable paid editing of the hall monitors that is the point in dispute?) How does this work? Do I need to satisfy you personally, or just anybody who happens to comment? Or only if I begin to reply, I have to follow through and respond in full to your satisfaction? I'm certainly confused about what the rules are here. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the questions, the rules referenced are to follow the conduct policies which include the Civility, Harassment, and No personal attacks policies. The content in the userspace can be reviewed for violations of this. As noted at the Resolving user conduct disputes portion of Dispute resolution, a conduct dispute can be taken to ANI, the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. The discussion created at ANI regarding yourself was closed without action regarding the above. Regarding the text in parathesis, if you do have specific evidence regarding an administrator based on what you have said, you can take it to Administrator recall provided that you have followed the requirements.

I believe that is everything that I can answer. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Larry, accusing a sub group of editors, in this case admins, of undisclosed paid editing without a single piece of evidence is a clear breach of our NPA policies. I appreciate your status of co-founder, so I won't push much further on this issue, but I ask you stop making such broad accusations in the future. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 16:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Isabelle, stop "accusing" me of lacking evidence. I presented evidence of a broad-based problem. The idea that the problem would not touch Administrators is a reasonable inference, which could only be disproven by...revealing their identities. Over and out. Drop this—you're in the wrong. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Your claim was "many" if you're dropping down to only touching Administrators you should probably make that clear.©Geni (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Larry, and I support your effort to reform Wikipedia

	Thank you Larry, and I support your effort to reform Wikipedia
	Thank you, Larry, for explaining your Theses recently during your interview with Alex Jones! I support your effort. Sherwood Lan Smith Lanimalsls (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Larry Sanger (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I just found out that you came back! Your Nine Theses is very informative and I hope your advice will make Wikipedia a better place for all. ~Rafael (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rafael! Larry Sanger (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

ani notice

as previously stated, there's an administrators' noticeboard/incidents thread regarding issues you're involved in. the thread is "#larry sanger...". your input in it will be appreciated consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Early Wikipedia history

A bit random, but I was curious and noticed that your account is user ID 216 and Jimbo's is 24. What happened to accounts up to 23, were those just throwaway dev and test accounts? Do you happen to know of a way of querying the list? Spent a little time looking through Wiki's tools and not seeing a way to find them. - Indefensible (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe @Graham87: is the resident expert on very early database items, which have a particular catacomb-like windiness all their own. jp×g🗯️ 09:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Indefensible: There's actually a way to get the exact answer to your question: Special:Redirect/user/1, Special:Redirect/user/2, Special:Redirect/user/3, etc, where each number is a user ID number. The current Wikipedia database (including the user table) in fact dates to the installation of the Phase II software here in January 2002, which replaced UseModWiki, the site's original wiki engine, so the user ID numbers reflect when a username was registered either in the Phase II software or MediaWiki. All edits in the current database from before January 2002 were imported here later, either in a September 2002 mass-import or in subsequent imports from 2001 databases (mostly performed by myself). In the very early days of Wikipedia, the site used CamelCase capitalisation in both page titles and usernames, so Larry's earliest username is LarrySanger and Jimbo's is JimboWales. Because the LarrySanger username hadn't been properly registered, it got taken over by a vandal; per using Special:Export,on User:Larry Sanger/oldUser:Larry Sanger/old, I can figure out that its user ID number was 7800319, but Special:Redirect/user/7800319 doesn't work (something unusual happened to that account). That's probably enough for now. Thanks for the ping and kind words, JPxG. Larry or anyone else if you have anything to add, feel free. Graham87 (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Nah, I've thought of a few other things to add: (a) a link to the user page for User:office.bomis.com, which mentions some very old Wikipedia edits, (b) the bug T2323, which not only affects many edits recorded under hostnames like office.bomis.com but also affects edits that are still recorded in the database under the username "Larry_Sanger", and (c) User:Nemo bis/Bug 323 revisions, a list of all edits that have been affected by that bug on the English Wikipedia. Graham87 (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, very interesting. So if I understand correctly, the current user ID numbering is an artifact based on an imperfect migration process which basically randomized everyone in the original database at that point, right? I also realized there is probably an API call which can get the list, but again the results would have the same reordering from the migration.

Also why are there some accounts without a registration date? I'm guessing there has to be another good technical reason for this exception. - Indefensible (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Indefensible: Nope, people had to manually re-register after the database migration, so the modern user ID number order simply reflects the order in which people did so back then. The dates around this time are a bit murky though because of a database glitch in February 2002, which is also mentioned at the page User:Conversion script. Not everyone re-registered, of course, as discussed above, but over the years I've made sure that all accounts from the available 2001 databases have been accounted for. As for accounts without recorded registration dates, to find out more about those, follow the links in this technical village pump discussion archive. [[Graham87 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, that's even messier than I thought. Probably should visit the Village Pump more often. - Indefensible (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the database had to be put into the Phase II format. In fact, I'm sure Jimbo would have made the first account (since he actually installed it), and the second would have been mine (since I asked him to set up the wiki for me to play with). Remember, from Jan. 2 until Jan. 15, 2001, it was the "Nupedia Wiki" and just an experimental side-project, running on UseModWiki. MediaWiki didn't exist. There were no namespaces. Those were invented later. I have no idea whatsoever why Jimbo's account # would be 23 and mine would be 216. Oh, I suppose I do: the migration process probably assigned IDs randomly.

Also, yes, my earliest username was LarrySanger (in the main namespace) and Jimbo's was JimboWales. A LOT of data from the UseModWiki install seems to have been lost. I always wondered why. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, first time learning about this even though I've been on Wiki for more than a decade already. Sounds like there was a bit of data loss during the process which I suppose is reasonable for back then. Curious what else might have been lost back then. - Indefensible (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Much of the data loss can be blamed on the KeptPages system. However, the Nostalgia Wikipedia, being a snapshot of the database from 20 December 2001, has edits that we don't have (or didn't until they were imported); ditto for the August 2001 database dump re-discovered in 2010, which wasn't subject to the KeptPages regime so every edit has been saved there. See the Wikimedia database dump archive for links relating to the 2001 dumps and several more. Graham87 (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

cool nine thesis

these thesis are cool dr. sanger. more thesis please. ~2025-33175-99 (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-33175-99 I agree. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 00:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Your creation of WP:9T is a wonderful thing and I hope you decide to stay. Wikipedia is lost without you. AustinSandwichShoppe (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job! PepsiPhilPunk (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

"WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 30 § WhyOnEarthWouldIWantToContributeToaWiki until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for your contribution on the improvement of general human knowledge corpus

Gatoparlante (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Nine Theses and Tucker Interview

Hi Larry, I totally support what You, Tucker, and Musk are doing. I totally agree that Wikipedia is more powerful and influential than CNN, Fox, and the rest of the mainstream media. I too have experienced censorship here on Wikipedia on both scientific and political issues. I like your idea of having conservatives and libertarians build reputation editing Wikipedia pages using sources that are allowed. My plan is potentially to edit on non controversial topics, which I have done to some degree. Of all your theses, the one I agree with the most is the one suggesting gatekeeping admins, who ultimately control what information is and isn't allowed, should not be anonymous so they can be held legally accountable if necessary, as they are in the mainstream media. I hope that soon, Wikipedia either becomes less dogmatic and open as it once was, or loses out to Grokipedia. Something definitely needs to be done. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't count the Nine Theses reforms out yet. Many Wikipedians are still thinking about them, and they've noticed that there has been a great deal of support outside of Wikipedia, and not a little within. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That is why I think more people need to start editing on non controversial topics they know something about. By doing so, they can gain status as regular editors and not activist editors, as they are contributing constructively. These people can then go on to influence policy if enough of them do this. The topic could be local geographic features, TV shows, movies, or anything that is not controversial. That is how real change will happen. I would like to see some of those people even become admins eventually. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Larry. I'm hesitant to post here because I find Wikipedia to be quite a hostile place. But I see that you very understandably have email turned off, so here's just a quick hello. I was unaware of your theses when I wrote this blogpost about an experience I had on Wikipedia earlier this year. I'm intrigued by your proposed governance changes; you clearly understand the foundational mechanisms of wikipedia's governance far better than I do. But I greatly appreciate your attention to the governance issues that clearly underlie Wikipedia's struggles. Selfishly, I'm curious what you think about my post, but I'm more curious if you think that a centralized Wikipedia is tenable or net beneficial long term in contrast to more fully embracing an encyclopedia network model -- e.g. scaling and refining your Encyclosphere concept, which I also had not heard of before I wrote my post. I presume your suggestions to be more practical (Wikipedia probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon so it can make refinements to improve), but in the abstract, it seems to me that stakeholder-curated decentralized knowledge nodes and some governing structure to connect them is a superior model to a perpetually conflictual monolith. As a designer, I do think that the primary barrier to such a thing is accessibility to organizing fluent information, and I'm interested in AI's capacity for potentially solving this. At any rate, much appreciation for your articulation and ongoing advocacy for the complex nature of truth. 3rdspace (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I read your blog post and can relate. I agree with you that the majority of Wikipedia's bias is toward mainstream science rather than a left wing bias, although they have both. I have edited about Alzheimer's disease and related topics and had my edits reverted. I also edited on climate change and physics, and the same thing happened. That said, their article about Trump is extremely biased against him due to their banning of many right wing sources. As I said above, I think the way to bring about change at Wikipedia is to edit pages on which you know something, but on which there is no controversy. It could be a TV show, a movie, a movie series, geographic features, a sports team, or anything else you know something about that either has information that is missing, or is incorrect. Just make sure your source what you say. In your blog post you said you think Grokipedia is a bad idea. You are correct that Grokipedia is horrible, as both the name and the writing style are terrible. In defense of Grokipedia though, it is actually more of a joke than anything else, as Musk's tweets imply he launched it as a joke. However, he intends for it to improve over time and be a genuine competitor to Wikipedia, complete with some form of human editing with an AI referee, and immune to censorship. As for the terrible name, that is temporary, and he intends to rename it "Encyclopedia Galactica" once it achieves significant quality. Encyclopedia Galactica may be the catalyst Wikipedia needs to allow the improvements Sanger wants. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

A late barnstar for you!

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		A little late to the party... but thanks for WP:9T to save Wikipedia! Hopefully this will open the eyes of editors. Félix An (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Also late to the party, but I agree with @Félix An. ~2026-63142 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

About sources

Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about topics. You have not provided any sources at all, and seem to suggest that your edits are based on your personal knowledge; this is insufficient as we cannot verify your personal knowledge. Information must be published somewhere that readers can locate and verify the information.
— User:331dot

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm missing the context here. Where does tgeorgescu say this, and why? And is he correct? (People have fundamental disagreements about what reliable sources are, which is why we need a robust neutrality policy.) Larry Sanger (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Something I wrote

I wrote User:SuperPianoMan9167/An academic bias is still a bias. I think you might be interested in reading it, as I make similar points to your fourth thesis.

I believe it is possible to alleviate systematic Western bias while still remaining credible among the mainstream, and I will use your own words to explain:

Now, when large groups (as, for example, astronomers talking about the Flat Earth theory) feel it is crucial to label something as “pseudoscience,” then by all means, report this fact: “The common view among the academic and scientific research community in Astronomy is that the Flat Earth theory is nothing more than pseudoscience.” But in that case, it is not Wikipedia that has made the claim, but astronomers.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This used to be obvious to Wikipedians, and it used to be official policy, not an "essay." Larry Sanger (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has to endorse mainstream science and mainstream history. If it does not do that, it is lost. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedia can still endorse mainstream science and history by explicitly stating that mainstream views are mainstream and that minority views are in the minority (instead of outright omitting minority views). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No—an encyclopedia does not have to endorse anything. It can be neutral, as WP was in its first five years or so. So, agreed with SPM. Also, there is mainstream and then there is mainstream. Sometimes WP favors one stream of legit science and history and disfavors another. It is just wrong to pick winners and losers; you make this into an organ of propaganda if you do. It is better to support independent thinkers in making up their own minds about controversial issues. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"The age of the Earth is above 4.5 Ga" is a fact, not opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and no one here is saying it isn't. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

SPM is correct again. Not only does that not respond to anything I said, it is irrelevant to all questions actually under dispute. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's possible to endorse mainstream science without having subtexts of moral judgement on those who do not accept the science.

For example, compare my reverted edit to Creation science (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=1302929068) to the current version.

I did not remove the part about the scientific consensus, because it still has to comply with WP:FRINGE, but I removed the WP:WEASEL wording by attributing the "dishonest and misguided sham" wording to its author in quotation marks, since the language is loaded and should be attributed to its author for WP:NPOV and should not be in WP's own voice. Needless to say, the other editors did not like it.

(This is not an endorsement of YEC. I just think that it's possible to not give undue weight to fringe theories without using such loaded language that implies moral judgement.) Félix An (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I put it back. Let's see if they are more welcoming of it now... Félix An (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Gone already! Félix An (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

My feedback on the Nine Theses

1. End decision making by "consensus". I agree that the idea of consensus is problematic, but I think every editor should be able to have an input, though having a committee from both sides of the debate assess the evidence and decide for themselves the validity of the arguments does seem like a good idea, as it is basically consensus but downsized, which makes for much easier decision making.
2. Enable competing articles. I'm not sure what this would look like in practice. Would it basically be like in every article about an ongoing debate, first there is a completely neutral section of an overview about the debate, then links to each sides' arguments and their view of how the article works? Are articles where there is no actual competing view allowed to have a single article presenting it as fact? As for your idea of having different articles for different audiences, I think this would be better realised as seperate English Wikipedias for different audiences, similar to the modern distinction between Simple English Wikipedia and English Wikipedia.
3. Abolish source blacklists. I'm a bit on the edge with this one. On one hand I agree that no source should be completely rejected regardless of content. On the other hand some sources are known for promoting conspiracy theories and other patently false statements. But the problem could be solved by instead of making blacklisting completely reject sources of those altogether, any edits using them have to be reviewed by more experienced editors before publishing. This system is already implemented in some pages on Wikipedia.
4. Revive the original neutrality policy. Totally agree with this one. The current policy is very vague and has led to way too many long-winded discussions. It should probably be expanded to fit the new larger-scale Wikipedia, but articles should be completely neutral. However, doesn't this contradict your second thesis? Is this an alternative to the second thesis if that one doesn't get adopted?
5. Repeal "Ignore all rules". Again, totally agree. Way too vague, is used without context, and would be better replaced with Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed.
6. Reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are. YES. YES. YES. This prevents ArbCom and bureaucrat members from abusing their powers and evading accountability.
7. Let the public rate articles. Interesting idea, would definitely require a fundamental Wikipedia code change. I think this is a bit similar to the current class rating system, except open to the public instead of just Wikipedia editors. However, I think this could be exploited by people to make a bad article have a good review by spamming the review system, or make a good article have a bad review, just because they disagree or agree with it. This also ties back to your second thesis.
8. End indefinite blocking. Again, YES. YES. YES. No particular comment on this one, but in general a good idea. People should be allowed to learn from their mistakes.
9. Adopt a legislative process. No comment here, agree that Wikipedia's current system is surprisingly weak and cannot enforce effectively against disruptive editors, and that there are solutions other than indefinite blocking.

VidanaliK (talk to me) 19:38, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy 25th birthday to Wikipedia!

Hi Larry Sanger, thank you for creating for the Wikipedia page, that the users can edit the page, create the page and so much more. Happy 25th birthday to your page Wikipedia! :D Ludo Games-T (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2026 (UTC)