On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthony<wikim...@inbox.org> wrote: > > Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable > > definition of "founder" by which that is true. > > I would make the following observations based on my reading: > > 1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant > than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. Personally I don't think "founder" or "co-founder" makes sense. Would you call someone a "co-founder" of Firefox? I wouldn't. "Co-creator" seems more accurate. > The guy that > has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves > more credit than the guy who implements it. What I've read suggests that *both* Sanger *and* Wales had the idea, the inspiration, and the drive to make it happen. And they *both* got the idea from someone else. > "Employee" is probably giving too little. Wales was an employee of Bomis too. "Employee" is irrelevant. Wales was the boss of Sanger, but that's irrelevant too. Just because someone is your boss doesn't mean they get sole credit for your co-creation. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
