Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote: On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:31:41 -0400, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Anyway, I was just rereading some of the discussion of Larry Sanger and Wikipedia, and noticed that while Wales claims that Jeremy Rosenfeld was the first to propose using wikis to work on Nupedia, he admits that it was Sanger who convinced him to actually do it. But Ben Kovitz claims to be the one who, in turn, gave Sanger the idea of using an open public wiki for encyclopedia development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz I'm not sure why there's a But at the start of that sentence. The two points are in no way incompatible. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I get stuck on the term módulos-entradas, which seems to be literally translated as input modules, but I can't fit into the context. Here's the context, by the way: http://softlibre.barrapunto.com/article.pl?sid=00/12/21/0849254 Anyway, I was just rereading some of the discussion of Larry Sanger and Wikipedia, and noticed that while Wales claims that Jeremy Rosenfeld was the first to propose using wikis to work on Nupedia, he admits that it was Sanger who convinced him to actually do it. Further, Sanger agrees that probably...hundreds of people had the idea about a wiki encyclopedia before Wikipedia got started, and even told each other about it. So despite what I see as Wales intentional attempt to distort the issue, by mentioning certain seemingly contradictory facts and then failing to elaborate on them, I think I've got a fairly well agreed upon version of the events as they happened. I feel I ought to continue that quote from Larry, rather than risk taking it out of context. Sanger continued: But it was the idea I had, while tasked with solving Nupedia's problem, that actually and directly led to the development of Wikipedia. That is a matter of historical fact, in living memory of several people--including Jimmy, whether he admits it or not. And Wales responded with Of course I 'admit' it. :-) I'd the say the Jeremy Rosenfeld bit, if true, actually enhances Sanger's contribution to the creation of Wikipedia, in that it shows that merely mentioning wikis to Wales wasn't enough to bring the idea to fruition. It's good to reread those old messages, because I had somehow gotten the impression that the fact that it was Sanger's idea, and not Rosenfeld's, which actually and directly led to the development of Wikipedia, was a matter of dispute. On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: I used Google Translate. I would post the entire translation here, but not sure if that is OK or not, so I'm only posting the translation of the first sentence. Have you thought about Wiki design a specific work of polishing modules-tickets? Looks like a poor translation anyway. Carcharoth On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Speaking of Hector, can someone translate this for me: ¿Habéis pensado en diseñar un Wiki específico para el trabajo de pulir los módulos-entradas?. Muchos proyectos de Software están considerando aprovechar la dinámica Document-mode de los Wikis como una alternativa a las message boards que permite una documentación persistente, no repetitiva e hipertextualmente articulada de los temas que se van tratando a petición de los usuarios. It was written by Álvaro Tejero Cantero on December 24, 2000, just a week before the conversation at the taco stand. I can't figure out if it's talking about software, or if it's talking about...well...Wikipedia. On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote: Probably March 2001 would be the earliest slashdotting: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/02/1422244 And right at the end it says: Hector, who started the 'gnupedia' project recently wrote this on his mailing list: Now, the FSF's plans are give all the support to the Nupedia project. So Nupedia will become the official GNU encyclopedia. -0) Nupedia seems to be too centralized and slow moving for me. I understand the need for quality control, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a more bazaar-type free encyclopedia project? Maybe so! People who want to get started _today_ on contributing free texts to the world can do so at Wikipedia. All the content is released under the GNU FDL, and it already has over 1000 articles. Short, and maybe not the high quality of Nupedia, but with time? Who knows... On 13/04/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: What really made Wikipedia was free publicity from Slashdot and The New York Times during 2001. I don't know if I could find the initial Slashdoting, but here are the links to the two New York Times articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html So I would say at least some of the credit goes to folks who recognized a good idea and alerted the rest of the intellectual and internet community to it. Fred Bauder -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:31:41 -0400, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Anyway, I was just rereading some of the discussion of Larry Sanger and Wikipedia, and noticed that while Wales claims that Jeremy Rosenfeld was the first to propose using wikis to work on Nupedia, he admits that it was Sanger who convinced him to actually do it. But Ben Kovitz claims to be the one who, in turn, gave Sanger the idea of using an open public wiki for encyclopedia development: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: And I would like to thank the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet. W.J. the Current. I'd like to thank Necessity and her baby-daddy for inventing inventions. I was going to thank the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but this is getting silly. Getting silly? It got silly several messages ago. There's a fundamental difference between the contributions to Wikipedia of Larry Sanger, and those of Ted Nelson (or Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Edison, Tesla, etc). I'll leave in Tim Berners-Lee since I believe he has expressed the notion that Wikipedia is similar to his vision of what the web would be, though I haven't investigated that. Wikipedia was certainly a compromise between the visions of many individuals, but that doesn't mean those individual visions and accomplishments can't be separated, and instead we must resort to a generic made by the community. If Wales can't get 100% credit as sole founder, then he wishes credit to be given to no one at all, but that doesn't mean we have to follow that reductio ad absurdium. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I used Google Translate. I would post the entire translation here, but not sure if that is OK or not, so I'm only posting the translation of the first sentence. Have you thought about Wiki design a specific work of polishing modules-tickets? Looks like a poor translation anyway. Carcharoth On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Speaking of Hector, can someone translate this for me: ¿Habéis pensado en diseñar un Wiki específico para el trabajo de pulir los módulos-entradas?. Muchos proyectos de Software están considerando aprovechar la dinámica Document-mode de los Wikis como una alternativa a las message boards que permite una documentación persistente, no repetitiva e hipertextualmente articulada de los temas que se van tratando a petición de los usuarios. It was written by Álvaro Tejero Cantero on December 24, 2000, just a week before the conversation at the taco stand. I can't figure out if it's talking about software, or if it's talking about...well...Wikipedia. On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: Probably March 2001 would be the earliest slashdotting: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/02/1422244 And right at the end it says: Hector, who started the 'gnupedia' project recently wrote this on his mailing list: Now, the FSF's plans are give all the support to the Nupedia project. So Nupedia will become the official GNU encyclopedia. -0) Nupedia seems to be too centralized and slow moving for me. I understand the need for quality control, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a more bazaar-type free encyclopedia project? Maybe so! People who want to get started _today_ on contributing free texts to the world can do so at Wikipedia. All the content is released under the GNU FDL, and it already has over 1000 articles. Short, and maybe not the high quality of Nupedia, but with time? Who knows... On 13/04/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: What really made Wikipedia was free publicity from Slashdot and The New York Times during 2001. I don't know if I could find the initial Slashdoting, but here are the links to the two New York Times articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html So I would say at least some of the credit goes to folks who recognized a good idea and alerted the rest of the intellectual and internet community to it. Fred Bauder -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales and Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the World Wide Web; the ARPAnet pioneers for creating the network on which the Web operated; Ted Nelson for inventing hypertext; .; Edison and/or Tesla for making electricity ubiquitous and all those later devices possible; Ben Franklin for making discoveries about electricity the later inventors could build on and so on and on and on. Everybody builds on the discoveries and inventions of those who came before. -- And I would like to thank the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet. W.J. the Current. I'd like to thank Necessity and her baby-daddy for inventing inventions. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I know it will only be a small satisfaction, but I wanted to mention that in the French speaking user guide book I recently co-wrote with Guillaume Paumier, you are recognised as a co-founder. There is even a paragraph clearly mentionning you. I invite you to check: http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikipedia, and in particular http://fr.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikipédia/Découvrir_Wikipédia/Explorer_l%27histoire If you are generous, you may even buy it (book available on Amazon for example :-)). See references here: http://www.pug.fr/titre.asp?Num=1072 As for the other points... I have had enough opportunities to see that what the public/journalists say and believe is frequently highly different from the reality and I fear we all have to live with this. For many, Jimmy is still the one doing all the work at the Wikimedia Foundation, and sometimes even the one approving any article before publishing. LOL. People need icons to focus on, and Jimbo is a better icon than most of us. Live with it. Ant ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 10:12 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: And I would like to thank the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet. W.J. the Current. I'd like to thank Necessity and her baby-daddy for inventing inventions. I was going to thank the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but this is getting silly. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take off, Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither of them expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or too much credit for it. The fact that they were surprised by its success does not mean that they don't deserve credit for it. History is full of ideas whose success surprised their creators. I'm sure the Beatles were surprised when they soared to the top of the music charts (especially after they had spent years grinding away with only modest success in Hamburg and Liverpool). When Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux, he had no way of knowing that it would take off the way it did. That doesn't mean the Beatles don't deserve credit for their music or Torvalds doesn't deserve credit for Linux. If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of an online encyclopedia after their first attempt, they persevered, retooled and came up with an alternative approach that did work. Of course they had no way of knowing what a success it would become. They got lucky, and a huge community of other people has contributed in various ways. But they still deserve credit for the original innovation. --- SHELDON RAMPTON Research director, Center for Media Democracy Center for Media Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 227 Madison, WI 53703 phone: 608-260-9713 Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email: http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts: http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the public agenda: http://www.sourcewatch.org Support independent, public interest reporting: http://www.prwatch.org/donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Sheldon Rampton wrote: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take off, Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither of them expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or too much credit for it. The fact that they were surprised by its success does not mean that they don't deserve credit for it. History is full of ideas whose success surprised their creators. I'm sure the Beatles were surprised when they soared to the top of the music charts (especially after they had spent years grinding away with only modest success in Hamburg and Liverpool). I agree with the above, and in fact consider it a partial refutation of the views I myself floated previously in this thread, as far as it is an accurate characterization of what really happened (which I cannot judge). When Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux, he had no way of knowing that it would take off the way it did. That doesn't mean the Beatles don't deserve credit for their music or Torvalds doesn't deserve credit for Linux. This is a more interesting case though. Minix did not take off. Somewhere along the way, well after the first version of Linux, Torvalds displayed a form of agility that Tannenbaum clearly appears to have lacked. And that was nothing about the initial idea, but all about what followed, each decision along the route. If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of an online encyclopedia after their first attempt, they persevered, retooled and came up with an alternative approach that did work. Of course they had no way of knowing what a success it would become. They got lucky, and a huge community of other people has contributed in various ways. But they still deserve credit for the original innovation. This brings to mind another point I have been mulling over... To what extent were Wales and/or Sanger in fact coming up with an idea out of nothing? And in fact was the idea ever an alternative approach (until it was abundantly clear that Nupedia would never pan out), rather than a complementary one? In fact; and I realize I am getting into really bold and speculative territory here, which might get me into some trouble here, if people don't realize I am merely just speculating... how much, if at all, was the creation of the scratchpad influenced by the wildly more freewheeling GNUpedia project of Richard M. Stallman? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
What would *really* interest me, and what I consider to be the seminal moment - even the foundational moment - in creating the wikipedia we all know; is when somebody made the conceptual breakthrough to the vision of wikipedia as something sui generis, and freestanding. I am betting there were hold-outs fairly long into the last days of Nupedia, who still thought it should be revivified in some form. I think for anyone who really wants to put a face on the founding of wikipedia, it would serve well if we revisited that particular period, and gave credit to who ever it was that first suggested that Wikipedia was *it*, and Nupedia wasn't. If that was Larry Sanger, I *do* think he deserves the credit, though that would clearly make him an apostate, since he has clearly spent much of his time lately arguing that no, after all, wikipedia _wasn't_ *it*. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen When I came on in 2002, Nupedia was still alive, had half a dozen articles, including one in development. Essentially it was dead, but Sanger had not given up on it. Anything you contributed that was not approved by an expert in the field was just lost. There was not even a transparent way to communicate with that expert. See http://www.starfishandspider.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia for more of my observations. What really made Wikipedia was free publicity from Slashdot and The New York Times during 2001. I don't know if I could find the initial Slashdoting, but here are the links to the two New York Times articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html So I would say at least some of the credit goes to folks who recognized a good idea and alerted the rest of the intellectual and internet community to it. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Probably March 2001 would be the earliest slashdotting: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/02/1422244 And right at the end it says: Hector, who started the 'gnupedia' project recently wrote this on his mailing list: Now, the FSF's plans are give all the support to the Nupedia project. So Nupedia will become the official GNU encyclopedia. -0) Nupedia seems to be too centralized and slow moving for me. I understand the need for quality control, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a more bazaar-type free encyclopedia project? Maybe so! People who want to get started _today_ on contributing free texts to the world can do so at Wikipedia. All the content is released under the GNU FDL, and it already has over 1000 articles. Short, and maybe not the high quality of Nupedia, but with time? Who knows... On 13/04/2009, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: What really made Wikipedia was free publicity from Slashdot and The New York Times during 2001. I don't know if I could find the initial Slashdoting, but here are the links to the two New York Times articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html So I would say at least some of the credit goes to folks who recognized a good idea and alerted the rest of the intellectual and internet community to it. Fred Bauder -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Ian Woollard arranged electrons to indicate (back on 04/13/2009 10:09 AM) that: Probably March 2001 would be the earliest slashdotting: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/02/1422244 Shortly after reading that Slashdot article I became Wikipedia user #30. -- Sean Barrett | It's impossible! I'm far too busy, so ask me s...@epoptic.com | now before I again become sane. --Edna Mode signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
-Original Message- From: Sean Barrett s...@epoptic.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales Ian Woollard arranged electrons to indicate (back on 04/13/2009 10:09 AM) that: Probably March 2001 would be the earliest slashdotting: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/03/02/1422244 Shortly after reading that Slashdot article I became Wikipedia user #30. -- There's a way to tell the order in which people joined Wikipedia? What is it? Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip There's a way to tell the order in which people joined Wikipedia? What is it? Possibly [[Special:Preferences]], and your user ID. My user ID is between 165,000 and 166,000. And I created my account on 8 January 2005. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
-Original Message- From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:04 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: snip There's a way to tell the order in which people joined Wikipedia? What is it? Possibly [[Special:Preferences]], and your user ID. My user ID is between 165,000 and 166,000. And I created my account on 8 January 2005. Carcharoth - I never knew this. Checking now I see that I am Wikipedian #29958 (in order of creation), having created my account Nov 2003 Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Delirium wrote: Larry Sanger wrote: I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic. I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]]. For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome here as you seem to think. If you have meta-level proposals you want to advance --- Wikipedia should change X because of Y --- I think people would take them seriously, especially if there was a concrete, potentially workable proposal. Such proposals would at the very least spark discussion. It's just that nobody wants to debate who founded Wikipedia on this list. We don't even necessarily all disagree with you on the subject. But it's not clear what gain will be had by debating it here, or what the outcome is supposed to be. Lots of people saying they agree? I don't actually think Jimmy would get a much more favorable reaction if he started trying to debate similar issues here, either. I think you might also be aiming at the wrong audience to some extent. You seem to accept the media-narrative founder myth of Wikipedia as this thing that sprang whole cloth out of nothingness due to the ingenuity of Jimmy Wales; save only that you'd like to modify the credit to include Larry Sanger in an equally or more prominent role. But my impression is that this is mainly an external view. Most of the knowledgeable Wikipedians I know take a more complex view, crediting to various degrees: Ward Cunningham's development of wikis; the development of community and social norms on WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki; the expansion of subject-specific wiki encyclopedias from the original design-patterns-encyclopedia focus of WikiWikiWeb to cover ever more areas of knowledge; the parallel cropping up of non-wiki all human knowledge written by random people on the internet compendia like Everything2; and so on. You and Jimmy were among many actors in that sea of ideas; what precise credit is due to each such actor for developing those ideas or accelerating their spread and recombination is probably a matter for historians more than us. But on the whole if you want a bigger role in a simplified founding saga, you might be addressing the wrong audience if many of us don't believe in the saga to begin with. =] I would suggest that the best place for an open discussion would be a face-to-face encounter between Jimmy and Larry at Wikimania. Perhaps Ward and Sunir and other key historical persons could also be present for this. Following that Larry could be appointed to the advisory board at the usual salary. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:04:20 -0700, Delirium wrote: I think you might also be aiming at the wrong audience to some extent. You seem to accept the media-narrative founder myth of Wikipedia as this thing that sprang whole cloth out of nothingness due to the ingenuity of Jimmy Wales; save only that you'd like to modify the credit to include Larry Sanger in an equally or more prominent role. But my impression is that this is mainly an external view. Most of the knowledgeable Wikipedians I know take a more complex view, crediting to various degrees: Ward Cunningham's development of wikis; the development of community and social norms on WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki; the expansion of subject-specific wiki encyclopedias from the original design-patterns-encyclopedia focus of WikiWikiWeb to cover ever more areas of knowledge; the parallel cropping up of non-wiki all human knowledge written by random people on the internet compendia like Everything2; and so on. ... and Tim Berners-Lee for inventing the World Wide Web; the ARPAnet pioneers for creating the network on which the Web operated; Ted Nelson for inventing hypertext; Xerox PARC for creating the elements of the modern user interface that Apple stole from them and Microsoft stole from Apple; the original IBM PC development team for creating the PC platform which brought personal computers into the mainstream and made it possible for the Internet and Web to be a mass medium; Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs for showing that home computers were a reasonable idea in the first place; the developers of the Altair computer for showing that computers didn't have to be huge million- dollar hulks; the pioneers of mainframe computers for creating those million-dollar hulks in the first place and letting computer science begin as a discipline of knowledge; Edison and/or Tesla for making electricity ubiquitous and all those later devices possible; Ben Franklin for making discoveries about electricity the later inventors could build on and so on and on and on. Everybody builds on the discoveries and inventions of those who came before. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraftdiff=100448194oldid=100448185 A lot of people have the sort of double standard I discussed in my WP:SAUCE essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sauce_for_the_goose_is_(not)_sa uce_for_the_gander You guys are right, and you're wrong. Sanger seems to be factually correct in his assertion of co-foundership given that Jimbo himself put matters that way until inexplicably changing his mind later. However, when he insists on a right to state his point here, he starts sounding like various crackpots who insist on their right to rant everywhere they want to, even on private property. On the other hand, it isn't very healthy for this project to take an attitude of if you can't argue logically against that guy's point, just call him a troll and ban him! A wide degree of free speech in meta- discussion is in keeping with the aims of the project, which is the point I made (or dead horse I kept beating...) during the BADSITES wars. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Larry isn't on moderation. However, when he's going headlong into green ink territory, I'm most certainly going to say so. I seriously doubt that you'd be the only one. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/12 Delirium delir...@hackish.org: Larry Sanger wrote: I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic. For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome here as you seem to think. Seconded. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote: It is not, and you have no right to anything other than as an ordinary user of Wikipedia. [[WP:SOAPBOX]] and [[WP:POINT]] spring to mind. Your personal disagreements have no place either in Wikipedia or on this list, so I strongly advise you to take them elsewhere. As an Admin, I'd have no qualms about blocking you indefinitely if this does not immediately stop. Whereas you might also have sockpuppets and meatpuppets, their blocking would follow as sure as night follows day. But the bottom line is that this disruption is unseemly and intolerable. Some of us have an encyclopedia to build, and personal disputes are inimical to that purpose. Please stop wasting our time. Who are you on wiki? -Mike R ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In a message dated 4/12/2009 9:31:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
This is exactly what matters. From what I can tell Sanger wrote much of
Wikipedia's initialy policy - policy that lives on today in various edited
forms. Not only was he key in coming up with the more formal guidelines
for
Nupedia, he personally wrote many of the informal guidelines that came to
be
used on Wikipedia. This is well documented on archive.org and Wikipedia
itself.
{{fact}}
As far as on Wikipedia itself and policy, we see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research;
diff=2014983oldid=2014449
The first two edits to WP:NOR for example, which is one of the core
policies.
Maybe you could post something that shows you evidence on this?
Will Johnson
**
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown0035amp;ncid=emlcntusdown0002)
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Brian wrote: I say this because I get the feeling that Wales and Sanger both believe there is a lot at stake here and at the same time I feel that they both take too much credit for what has happened. What they did is akin to writing an academic paper that first introduces an idea. They cannot claim authorship or credit for all of the publications that cite their initial publication - just the initial idea. It seems clear that this initial idea was authored and implemented by Sanger Wales (2001?). It would be a grave injustice to just cite Wales (2001) if the idea was only part, or not even, his. Since you frame your analogy in terms of scientific ideas, I think it would be much more accurate to put it in terms of Sanger Wales putting forth a later discredited theory, which however was tangential and part of the broader scientific thread of inquiry that eventually brought forth a tenable theory. To put it in more concrete terms, visualize Sanger Wales (2001) as being Lamarckianism. Something close, but not quite on point. Wikipedia, as it stands now, would be Darwinism, very well established as the most robust theory out there, but with important wrinkles that still need to be ironed out. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
-Original Message- From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia Foundation is. - Foundations like companies are mostly the worst possible historians. They have a vested interest in rewriting history to match their current goals. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It isn't, and you don't. I find this part of your argument the strangest. You require approval and a 50 word-biography in order for someone to post on your talk page at Citizendium. The ability to use a user talk page is clearly a privilege which can be granted or can be taken away. If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right to get it out there. Your right to get your message out there stops at the point where you try to use someone else's website to do so. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it annoying. If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms. Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraftdiff=100448194oldid=100448185 And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draftdiff=prevoldid=100448877 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Lets just be clear that this is an IMHO that has nothing to do with my point - the source of authority on the subject. All primary sources are biased in that respect. On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: -Original Message- From: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:54 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia Foundation is. - Foundations like companies are mostly the worst possible historians. They have a vested interest in rewriting history to match their current goals. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
-Original Message- From: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draftdiff=prevoldid=100448877 ___ So apparently Citizendium allows free speech but only if you are very polite, which includes not pointing out other people's breach of the rules. (I had written a much more pointy response but then deleted it.) Will is this horse dead yet Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Brian, the foundation is not the source of authority on what did or didn't happen years before they existed. The sources of authority would be those people who were actually present and involved in the situation. I'm sure that the entire company wasn't solely Jimmy and Larry. There are probably others who were employees or whatever who could also be interviewed on the matter. As well there are archives of what Jimmy and Larry did or didn't say, and when and to whom. The foundation really is irrelevant in writing the History of Wikipedia: The First Two Years. They aren't even a primary source. Will Johnson ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Seth Finkelstein se...@sethf.com wrote: What's so interesting in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's evidence reached some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles. The article where this is covered, [[History of Wikipedia]] had a neutral balanced and stable assessment of the Sanger/Wales dispute and founder/co-founder issue, for years now.It had nothing to do with Larry Sanger's evidence reaching a tiny number of core editors, and everything to do with mass participation. It was well described as far back as 2007 and (unless vandalized) is so today. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraftdiff=100448194oldid=100448185 And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draftdiff=prevoldid=100448877 And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more accurate than the citizendium one in this case: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy On 11/04/2009, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraftdiff=100448194oldid=100448185 And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draftdiff=prevoldid=100448877 And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraftdiff=100448194oldid=100448185 The Constabulary? How precious! Yet another reason why I won't be going there. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Ian Woollard wrote: Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more accurate than the citizendium one in this case: http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy I /really/ don't think Wikipedia wants a pissing contest here. Do we really want to compare the worst article we can find on Citizendium with Wikipedians worst? I think we'd clearly lose. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints... Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising. I don't get the point. In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader. Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia? Michel ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints... Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising. Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Folks, shout Larry down all you want - I know I personally would be happy to see the co-founder dispute disappear forever. But threats to block or moderate him are overboard; there is no basis for either action (and a block would result in repercussions for the blocking admin, I'd imagine). Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Fred Bauder arranged electrons to indicate (back on 04/11/2009 07:58 AM) that: A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constab...@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints... Complaining is Not Allowed, so problems cannot exist. Kewl. I sure won't be participating in any society where people address each other as Citoyen, even if they have renamed the Committee of Public Safety. -- Sean Barrett | Free Tibet* s...@epoptic.com | * with purchase of home: 310-641-9625 | another Tibet of equal cell: 310-739-3785 | or greater value. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Depends... Michel may be comparing Wikipedia (and this list in particular) to NK as well. Fayssal F. Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:11:07 +0100 From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: fbad4e140904110811me65b77axabfcf2bc14fe7...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipe...@zog.org: I don't get the point. In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader. Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia? No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME falls afoul of it. You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea. - d. -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote: 2009/4/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net: Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints... Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising. I don't get the point. In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader. Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia? My understanding was that the North Koreans have a very egalitarian policy: Nobody has access to the internet. ;-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/10 Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com: I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this thread. What is citizendium? Is there a linky? http://citizendium.org/ It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia that isn't Wikipedia. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/10 Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com: I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this thread. What is citizendium? Is there a linky? http://citizendium.org/ It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia that isn't Wikipedia. We also have an article on it, as well as one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Citizendium have an article on Wikipedia and also one on Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Wikipedia http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium It's quite interesting reading those four articles and comparing them. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: If he is telling the truth it seems like a perfectly legitimate request. Wikipedia obviously cares about the issue enough to have Wikipedia articles covering the subject and put out press releases mentioning it. If so, then Wikipedia should care enough to get those correct. This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry: Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding. We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It needs to end. So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it the hell up! Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I suggest you stick to improving that. Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself, Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight to realize that you're not neutral on the issue. So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry: Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding. We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It needs to end. So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it the hell up! Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I suggest you stick to improving that. Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself, Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight to realize that you're not neutral on the issue. So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Thank you! That's about the most balanced analysis I've read yet. Far better than most of the pledges of allegiance to Jimmy, or the two minute hate response to Larry, that we've had on this list. As long as neutral people write the relevant articles, most of us can either stop caring, or draw our own conclusions on who (if anyone) is deluded, self-deluded, spinning, lying or otherwise manipulating history. Me, I'll go back to adopting the mantra of a wise man: Decline to participate, sorry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: Oskar Sigvardsson wrote: This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry: Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding. We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It needs to end. So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it the hell up! Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I suggest you stick to improving that. Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself, Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight to realize that you're not neutral on the issue. So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l Thank you! That's about the most balanced analysis I've read yet. Far better than most of the pledges of allegiance to Jimmy, or the two minute hate response to Larry, that we've had on this list. As long as neutral people write the relevant articles, most of us can either stop caring, or draw our own conclusions on who (if anyone) is deluded, self-deluded, spinning, lying or otherwise manipulating history. Me, I'll go back to adopting the mantra of a wise man: Decline to participate, sorry Hear, hear (to both of you)! -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/10 Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It isn't the last two of those things. You need to reread What Wikiipedia Is Not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT This list is not a free ranting green ink zone. It's a working list for the project itself. In practice it's stuff of interest to those working on the project; those people here have pretty clearly said thanks Larry, we get your point, it's still irrelevant. If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right to get it out there. You've gotten it to here. Thanks, message received. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24 hours or so, but I did want to respond to this. Various people said: So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. Thank you! Hear, hear (to both of you)! You are misunderstanding what's going on here. Jimmy Wales has been lying about me and my role in this project. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM, and I frankly resent your implicit dismissal of my concerns. This isn't just more of the same; I am *not* asking for the community's resolution on the issue of who is founder. That really *would* be inane, but it isn't what I am doing. You would know this, by the way, if you had actually read my open letter to Jimmy Wales. I am speaking out first time, publicly, by saying that Jimmy Wales has been lying about me in a way that is self-serving. This is far from the first time that you've spoken about it publicly, Larry. If you don't care about that, that's your prerogative. You don't need to announce to the world that you don't care. There *are* a lot of people who *do* care. I'm speaking to *those* people. Chosing this venue, however, is an assertion by you that wikien-l is populated by people who do care - and the responses are indicating otherwise. Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. If he wants to take responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to represent himself that way to the world, and in other respects speak on behalf of the project--which he does, whether you like it or not--then he ought to be held to a higher standard than most. If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right to get it out there. Your attitude shows a complete disdain for the purpose and subscribers to wikien-l. This is not a public bulletin board. This is not a printing press you own. If we tell you this is not the right place, then you have no property rights over the medium or our inboxes to insist that we continue to receive your messages here. If you believe that you have a right to raise hell on this list... I request that the list moderators moderate Larry immediately. That's not what wikien-l is for. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/10 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: If you believe that you have a right to raise hell on this list... I request that the list moderators moderate Larry immediately. So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site that's stopped that from happening. I'd hope he'd know how to comport himself with more dignity. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
George Herbert wrote: That's not what wikien-l is for. So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's integrity. I thought I should alert the august and serious readers of this list, to the fact that we now have a Requests for Comment on the pressing question of whether or not we should include Richard Gere's rumoured altercation with a Gerbil in his biography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Gere#Gerbil I mean, why discuss founders and co-founders when we have other Serius Bizniz on the wiki? Scott ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24 hours or so, but I did want to respond to this. Various people said: So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't need it. Rant over. Thank you! Hear, hear (to both of you)! You are misunderstanding what's going on here. Jimmy Wales has been lying about me and my role in this project. This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM, and I frankly resent your implicit dismissal of my concerns. This isn't just more of the same; I am *not* asking for the community's resolution on the issue of who is founder. That really *would* be inane, but it isn't what I am doing. You would know this, by the way, if you had actually read my open letter to Jimmy Wales. I am speaking out first time, publicly, by saying that Jimmy Wales has been lying about me in a way that is self-serving. If you don't care about that, that's your prerogative. You don't need to announce to the world that you don't care. There *are* a lot of people who *do* care. I'm speaking to *those* people. Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It is not, and you have no right to anything other than as an ordinary user of Wikipedia. [[WP:SOAPBOX]] and [[WP:POINT]] spring to mind. Your personal disagreements have no place either in Wikipedia or on this list, so I strongly advise you to take them elsewhere. As an Admin, I'd have no qualms about blocking you indefinitely if this does not immediately stop. Whereas you might also have sockpuppets and meatpuppets, their blocking would follow as sure as night follows day. But the bottom line is that this disruption is unseemly and intolerable. Some of us have an encyclopedia to build, and personal disputes are inimical to that purpose. Please stop wasting our time. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. This is completely untrue. Both wikipedia and this mailing-list are run by the Wikimedia foundation, a private entity, meaning that they (and, by extension, the moderators and the administrators on wikipedia) can absolutely decide what does or does not go on here. This is a concept you should be very familiar with. On the Citizendium Fundamentals page ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals ) you find this little nugget of information: ...there will be a process for rapidly removing rulebreakers from the project. While most people will enjoy the privilege of contributing to the Citizendium if they are able to make a positive difference, there is a blanket right neither to contribute nor to participate in the project's governance. As I understand it, you are quite happy to suspend the editing rights of anyone that's causing trouble or causing strife within the community (something I don't have any problem with; it's your project, do what you like). Wikipedia is likewise not a free speech zone, nor is it some sort of grand democratic experiment. Just because anyone can edit initially, it doesn't mean that we have to keep what you say live on our site. Same thing goes for our mailing-list. If you spend even a little time on our site, you'll find that there have literally been hundreds (if not thousands) of extremely destructive trolls who have made exactly the same argument that you are making. You're restricting my freedom of speech! I'm gonna report you to the Hague! By acting like this, and using this argument, you're rapidly becoming part of that group. Is that something you desire? Let me ask you, if someone made that argument on CZ, what would you do? I admire both you and Jimmy quite a bit, but on this issue, you're both acting like petulant children. Grow the fuck up. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
David Gerard said: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It isn't the last two of those things. You need to reread What Wikiipedia Is Not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT It certainly has changed since I wrote it. It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about the roles and public behavior of the most prominent representative of the community. Perhaps you need to rethink what you're trying to say, David. This list is not a free ranting green ink zone. I resent the implication, David, that I am ranting. I am not. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: It certainly has changed since I wrote it. It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about the roles and public behavior of the most prominent representative of the community. Perhaps you need to rethink what you're trying to say, David. No, he's exactly right. Wikipedia is not, and it has never been a free speech zone. It has never been a goal of the project to provide people a platform for people to say whatever they want. Wikipedia is absolutely not devoted to free speech. See, we're an *encyclopedia*, not a public forum. We may let anyone edit, but we're always going to be first and foremost an encyclopedia. Everything else is second to that. If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there. --Oskar ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: David Gerard said: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It isn't the last two of those things. You need to reread What Wikiipedia Is Not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT It certainly has changed since I wrote it. It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about the roles and public behavior of the most prominent representative of the community. Perhaps you need to rethink what you're trying to say, David. This list is not a free ranting green ink zone. I resent the implication, David, that I am ranting. I am not. Wikipedia is not and should not be: * A battleground on which to fight external conflicts * A primary source * A social website or discussion board Wikipedia is: * An encyclopedia What you are saying falls into the first categories and not the last. It's about the project, in a sense, regarding the history of it. But it's an aspect of the history that the rest of us were not there for, and which does not bear on anything significant for the project going forwards. Trying to use the encyclopedia project, its people and project mailing lists, to fight a personal vendetta is blatant disregard for the encyclopedia project. It's insulting to us and the project. You could be right on the facts. I don't have any knowledge either way. But even if you are, this is not the place for it, and your approach here was improper and abusive to the project. It has not helped your reputation, has not helped clear up the history, has not helped the encyclopedia in any way. Please take this somewhere else. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. If he wants to take responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to represent himself that way to the world, and in other respects speak on behalf of the project--which he does, whether you like it or not--then he ought to be held to a higher standard than most. If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right to get it out there. --Larry Larry, You know better than that. In any event you've raised your hell and gotten your answer, both from Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia community. There has to be an end to any fuss. This list is for discussion of the English Wikipedia. Given Jimmy Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop those issues with respect to this list. Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it. And I'm NOT talking about YOU liking it. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
George and Oskar, you are both making a fallacious argument. Of course Wikipedia, as a reference resource, is not a battleground, a primary source, or a discussion board. But WikiEN-L is, in case you didn't notice it, a discussion board, and it is different from the encyclopedia. It also has a great deal of political influence in the project. It is the closest thing you have to a town square. In that context, my argument is sound and yours completely misses the point. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Fred Bauder wrote: Given Jimmy Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop those issues with respect to this list. Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are completely wrong that the Wikipedia community in general has rejected my *assertions*. In fact, my impression is that half or more of the people who have weighed in have said, among other things, I think Larry has a legitimate complaint. I think I'll take this to Foundation-L and see if the Board will have the integrity and balls to make an official statement. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Objection, what I think most people have said is that they think you are probably correct in this little issue about being a co-founder, but to be honest they don't really care would prefer not to have their inbox filled with rubbish. Most people seem to think that complaining here is pointless annoying! What is true is that they have rejected your drive to get Wales/Foundation board to apologise say you were right all along because they can't see the point just want you to stop damaging Wikipedia to get publicity for Citizendium. That last little bit might have been my view :-) but the rest is the impression I get from people, correct me if I'm wrong anyone On 11/04/2009 01:33, Larry Sanger wrote: Fred Bauder wrote: Given Jimmy Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop those issues with respect to this list. Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are completely wrong that the Wikipedia community in general has rejected my *assertions*. In fact, my impression is that half or more of the people who have weighed in have said, among other things, I think Larry has a legitimate complaint. I think I'll take this to Foundation-L and see if the Board will have the integrity and balls to make an official statement. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic. I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]]. On the issue of whether I am entitled to speak out here, I did want to make two points. First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it annoying. If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms. Second, virtually all of the arguments of those claiming that I lack the right to air my concerns on this list work as arguments that I should not have been allowed to post in the first place. Surely the moderators were right to allow me to post, and I was grateful to them for letting me do so. Nevertheless, since first posting, all I have been doing is defending the relevance, or significance, of my open letter to Jimmy Wales, or my right to make it--not really discussing its content at all. That's a pretty sad state of affairs, I think. I actually think that a large majority of Wikipedians probably sympathize with my letter, but that they are intimidated by those on this list who have the ability to make up arguments justifying censorship of someone with a serious, well-justified complaint about one of the most important leaders of the project. As to the attacks on Citizendium, I'm not going to bother replying. Those who are inclined to be sympathetic toward us will find out about us from more reliable sources, or from their own observation. Suffice it to say that the people who are lobbing the most vicious attacks either know nothing about the project, or are deeply philosophically opposed to it, and in either case, their opinion is not worth very much, as far as I'm concerned. As to those who might be inclined to sympathize with us, but who are intimidated into silence here on this list, and by mobs in general, let's just say that you're very welcome to join us. I do want to say one last thing to the more reasonable people in the community, who I know have been following this, and who stick things out in the face of what looks like a brainless mob: while I long ago decided I couldn't join you, I do admire and sympathize with your situation. Wikipedia is great--it's hard to abandon. There are a lot of very smart and decent people on Wikipedia, and if I have harsh words about the Wikipedia community from time to time, I hope you'll understand I'm not talking about you. --Larry (I'll be unsubscribing right after sending this) P.S. Apropos of nothing but a throwaway remark by someone on the list: I have never, ever, not even once, used any account on Wikipedia (or Citizendium) other than User:Larry Sanger. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Fred Bauder wrote: Given Jimmy Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop those issues with respect to this list. Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are completely wrong that the Wikipedia community in general has rejected my *assertions*. In fact, my impression is that half or more of the people who have weighed in have said, among other things, I think Larry has a legitimate complaint. I think I'll take this to Foundation-L and see if the Board will have the integrity and balls to make an official statement. --Larry Foundation-l is not different from this list with respect to the questions you are raising. It is meant for discussion of subjects regarding all Wikimedia projects, not for personal disputes. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia says Wikipedia was a complementary project for Nupedia. Citenzendium says Wikipedia was an accidental spin-off of Nupedia. Is there any reason to say that? How can a project be an accidental spin-off of something else? Noble Story From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:00:37 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/10 Jon scr...@nonvocalscream.com: I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this thread. What is citizendium? Is there a linky? http://citizendium.org/ It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia that isn't Wikipedia. We also have an article on it, as well as one on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Citizendium have an article on Wikipedia and also one on Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Wikipedia http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium It's quite interesting reading those four articles and comparing them. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right to get it out there. You Are JoeM, And I Claim My Five Pounds. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Oskar Sigvardsson If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there. In watching this incident unfold, I've been impressed regarding the way that the take-it-to-where-Jimbo-*is* strategy appears to be *right*, as a matter of effectiveness. Despite the limited perceptions of those who are quick to deem critics as trolls, I'm fascinated by the group dynamics and sociology of Wikipedia. Now, phrases like free speech can lead to knee-jerking as people rush to recite cliches. Yada, yada, First-Amendment-is-government, private-legal-rights, blah, blah. Like the old joke, we should just number those arguments, so people could simply say #17 or #23, and get them out of the way. Been there, done that, got the flame-wars. We're really talking about qualities like ethics and fairness in pursuit of justice (very vague words, I know). What's so interesting in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's evidence reached some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles. And apparently only because it was put in the places those editors read, over many formalistic and legalistic objections (WP:THISPOLICYMEANSWHATISAYITDOES). That is, on his website, the right people *DID* *NOT* *READ* *IT*. You could link to it. You could have a _Guardian_ columnist repeatedly refer to it in articles about Wikipedia 1/2 :-). You could bring it up over and over in various comments. *DIDN'T* *MATTER*. Only a very particular setting was effective in this case. It should be needless to say, but this is significant for building an encyclopedia. More broadly, it's a lesson in, let's say, information flow, that has some important implications for trying to ensure accuracy. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer Web site - http://sethf.com/ Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis' original 4-5 employees, because of the tech market bust, when Bomis suddenly lost a million-dollar ad deal. Tim Shell told me I was the last person to be laid off. He told me - the day I arrived back from my honeymoon, as I recall - that I should probably start looking for new work, because of the market. I was made to believe, and always did until a few years ago when you started implying otherwise, that I had been
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
First, let me thank the moderators for approving my letter. Replies to two different people here. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: ... it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more discernment. I disagree. As I said in the letter itself, there is not a better place for this message than Jimmy Wales' user talk page. This is because I am deliberately confronting him. If I can't confront a person on the talk page for the leader (at least by reputation) of the project, where can I? User talk pages in current practice are not for blogging or personal communication I think you may not understand what an open letter is. Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia? An open letter cannot be dismissed as either a blogs or a personal communication. User talk should be squarely about improving the encyclopaedia. This *is* about improving the encyclopedia--by improving its leadership, the way that the media reports about it, and what Wikipedians themselves know about it. You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. Tris Thomas wrote: Can this just not stop? Stop? But I am not continuing something, I am starting something. I have never confronted Jimmy Wales publicly in this way for his lies, and described them as lies, ever before. I am absolutely insisting, once and for all, that the record be corrected and that Jimmy Wales be held to account for his appalling and self-serving behavior toward me. The way to stop it is for Jimmy Wales to be shamed into ceasing his misrepresentations of Wikipedia's early history--or else for him to earn a wide public reputation as a completely unreliable source about it. Either way will suit me fine. Until then, I will continue to confront and shame him with archived evidence of his mendacity. I would hope that those with an interest in sound leadership and honesty would appreciate and support my efforts. Everyone knows that you once described each other as co-founders therefore, if that's what Jimmy described you as back then, that's what you are. I'm glad you're convinced. Then let's ask the Wikimedia Foundation to reaffirm what it said about me in its very first press release. Anyway, this isn't just about the label co-founder, as you'll see if you read the letter. Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened it makes absolutely no difference now. What I see as childish is the unnecessary tip-toeing around Jimmy Wales, and people supporting and making excuses for what *really is* just self-serving dishonesty. Please just get over it, it's damaging Wikipedia itself, which I don't think Larry wants to do, just seems so pointless. It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry. Enough said. ~O ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. What hole are we in, pray? Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative. Bill From: purple.clou...@gmail.com purple.clou...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:24:38 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry. Enough said. ~O ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. So much for history. If you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia community, go ahead. This comment is so obviously policised and personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the foundation myth. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Agree with Sam, I'm not supporting Jimmy because it's clear in calling himself the sole founder he is wrong shouldn't do it, but I really don't see the need to continue this issue. There is no tiptoeing around Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm sure he's reading it) in Wikipedia articles. There is a general consensus that on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable almost everyone agrees, so why the continuation? If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right is the sole only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we just end this pointless, yes pointless, feud. Just my view! :,) On 09/04/2009 17:33, Sam Korn wrote: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. What hole are we in, pray? Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite Or something like that. -- Sam Yes, that is an appropriate description of the situation. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I may agree with that but I am still waiting for mainstream media talking about it and Larry's claims in the open before thinking about editing that page. Fayssal F. Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:15:16 +0100 From: geni geni...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: f80608430904091015t42c71370j9ccf28885624c...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 2009/4/9 Sam Korn smo...@gmail.com: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. -- geni -- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 69, Issue 22 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Another set of replies. I wrote: ... On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. Bill Carter wrote: Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative. Bill, I appreciate the compliment! But it is my intention to begin--soon--to seek a successor. It is deeply important that the torch be passed in truly open, democratic projects. I have other projects in the works to start, anyway. Charles Matthews wrote: One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. I am not asking you to choose versions of history, I am asking you to acknowledge that Jimmy Wales has self-servingly denied, distorted, or ignored provable facts that ought to be acknowledged on *anybody's* version of history. Tris Thomas wrote: ... but I really don't see the need to continue this issue. There is no tiptoeing around Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm sure he's reading it) in Wikipedia articles. There is a general consensus that on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable almost everyone agrees, so why the continuation? If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right is the sole only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we just end this pointless, yes pointless, feud. This is not a feud, Tris. This is me publicly confronting a liar with evidence. A feud would be more of a matter of competing claims with no way of sorting them out. There *is* a way to sort the claims I dispute out: by looking in the archives and interviewing people. Moreover, and I'm not sure how many times I am going to have to say this, it isn't just about the matter of being a co-founder and me getting credit. If you read the letter, you'll see why I say so. While I do of course want proper credit for my achievements, what I want even more is to correct the record in general, and to dissuade Jimmy Wales from being so fast and loose with the truth, as I said. I am now convinced this requires a public confrontation, because the low-level and private remarks I have made in response to him over the last five years or so obviously haven't worked. It will only stop when Jimmy Wales changes his tune, or he is so discredited in public that no one listens to him on the subject any longer. Sam Korn said: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. geni said: It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. True, but it's more than that, you know. The problem isn't just inconvenience to the community. In an encyclopedia project, the inherent value of the truth itself ought to be accorded a lot of weight. In addition, you have Wikipedia's reputation in the broader world to think about. The sort of person who is permitted to speak on its behalf, and who still enjoys a lot of credence in claiming sole credit for starting it, says a lot about the
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Another set of replies. I wrote: ... On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. A problem you are trying to stir up. As far as Wikipedia [being] an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, that is an artifact of your own wishful thinking. As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy Wales, but that ought to be the end of it. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. I wrote: Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Fred Bauder replied: A problem you are trying to stir up. A problem I am exacerbating--quite right. Do you have a problem with that? As far as Wikipedia [being] an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, that is an artifact of your own wishful thinking. Well, if that's really what you want to think, Fred, I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you otherwise. Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy Wales, but that ought to be the end of it. If Jimmy Wales were to apologize, he would have to admit that he had done something wrong., and for me to believe an apology, I should have to see him correct the record and say he was wrong. What are the chances of that happening? I think I know Jimmy well enough to know he will never do that. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. Actually, though I may be an inner circler, the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some trolling. Those who have something in mind that is not merely effective - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways. Fred Bauder replied: As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't. Yes, the bit where you write: Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory. Cutting to the chase, it seems perfectly easy to say a pox on both your houses in the dispute on the founder badge; and yet to defend Wikipedia. In fact it's been a good few days, with positive write-ups in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the London Observer. Noam Cohen in the NYT mentions there is a professional class of Wikipedia skeptics. If you haven't already, you should see the context there. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: I predict it won't stop it for a moment. Mike Johnson of CZ has noted before that criticising Wikipedia is the quickest way to publicity for Citizendium: http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2007/05/modern-dragons-now-with-20-more-umlauts.html As I commented on that post, it's not clear that's good for Citizendium in the long run. Entirely too many Citizendium contributors appear to be in it to be against Wikipedia, rather than e.g. to write an encyclopedia. Further note from Tara Hunt: How not to build a community: Part I: the anti-community http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html The first mistake I ever made in community fostering is to position the company I worked for in opposition to another one (can't find that post, but I was an idiot). So let me offer this unsolicited advice: Rule #1 in building your own reputation is to never ever ever build it on the grounds that it is different/better/etc. than an established company See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29 - the successful forks don't spend their time railing against the other tine of the fork ... they get on with being good of their own account. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Larry Sanger wrote: It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. So much for history. If you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia community, go ahead. This comment is so obviously policised and personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the foundation myth. Charles I agree totally with Charles, here. When How Wikipedia Works goes into its 23rd printing :) hopefully we will be able to rely on other people's dispassionate sifting of the historical record (what there is of it; much of what is disputed is over what was said in personal conversations, though seemingly not much public effort has been made so far to find out what the other parties in those conversations think). Larry and Jimmy are not the only early Wikipedians, and someday hopefully there will be a better detailed history of the whole endeavor in the black-hole, missing-edit-history years. (I can see this being printed by one of those obscure university presses, on thick paper with extensive footnotes...) In the meantime, of course, the public will continue to learn about the project through the news and their own searches, as they always have, and the rest of us will go about our business. The Wikipedia story is not exciting because of any single person's contributions to the projects; it's the aggregate over time that matters, and outside of the larger context of the project, none of our contributions (no matter how much, or how little) are worth much. (Founding doesn't mean much if other people don't run with it; and contributing to a wiki doesn't get you very far if others don't also build the web). But this is not a negative aspect -- as Andrew Lih said at the end of The Wikipedia Revolution, we are _all_ lucky to have been a part of such a revolutionary project, and we should all take personal pride in that. -- phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com: Are these IRC transcripts accurate? The source is questionable, but as a minor participant in one of the discussions, it does seem to tally with my (admittedly fuzzy) memories. http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up The first one is. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
But you know there can only be one benevolent dictator, right? On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: ... it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more discernment. I disagree. As I said in the letter itself, there is not a better place for this message than Jimmy Wales' user talk page. This is because I am deliberately confronting him. If I can't confront a person on the talk page for the leader (at least by reputation) of the project, where can I? Soapboxes are pretty cheap these days. Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened it makes absolutely no difference now. What I see as childish is the unnecessary tip-toeing around Jimmy Wales, and people supporting and making excuses for what *really is* just self-serving dishonesty. Moreover, I don't think everyone does know what happened during those early years. I've read contradictory statements about it, and have concluded that neither you nor Wales are being 100% truthful. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org: The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, Nah. Sure journalists have worked out that an attack on wikipedia will get them some viewer ship but these days the attacks tend towards outdated recycled stuff or I don't like it. Fresh scandals not so much. coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. We have many many problems. From the POV of the community Jimbo's actions with regards to the founder issue probably ranks somewhere below the fight over the Country X country Y relations articles. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. What does this have to do with the foundation or the community? Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. Jimbo is not the leader (sue might have a better claim to that but hard to tell) and I think chief spokesbeing is probably jay. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: Larry Sanger wrote: Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. Actually, though I may be an inner circler, the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some trolling. Those who have something in mind that is not merely effective - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways. Fred Bauder replied: As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't. Yes, the bit where you write: Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory. To quote Mr Sanger, Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales. On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org wrote: Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Endless source of scandal and dishonesty? The reputation of Wikipedia? The project's leading light? I credit none of the three. Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. So it's personal. There's nothing wrong with that at all; from a certain point of view, I don't blame you. On the other hand, I'm not interested in getting involved. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. I do not consider Jimmy Wikipedia's leader or its chief spokesman. Perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the project is community-led, community-driven, community-focussed; I don't know. I am not interested, no, in this personal and now-irrelevant dispute. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Larry Sanger wrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. Free speech? That's a novel idea. We frequently tell recalcitrant editors that the First Amendment does not apply on Wikipedia, and many of our policies, e.g. [[WP:SOAPBOX]], [[WP:TRUTH]], [[WP:NOR]] are inimical to free speech. However, this is beginning to bore the hell out of me as being not far off Jorge Luis' Borges description of the [[Falkands War]]. I suspect I'm not alone. Whinge as much as you like on your own blog, go to the media if you like, but I am dangerously close to issuing several entirely policy-related blocks. Permanent ones. PS Please wish me a Happy Birthday. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smo...@gmail.com writes: Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite - Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder. Will Johnson **Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
2009/4/9 Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.org Fred Bauder replied: A problem you are trying to stir up. A problem I am exacerbating--quite right. Do you have a problem with that? Yes. You can't complain that something is a problem when you are the one who is causing it. Basically, shut up and go and cry in a corner. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
That would be a matter for Foundation-l then, not wikien-l. 2009/4/9 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history. On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis'
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, smo...@gmail.com writes: Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered the founder./cite - Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder. Will Johnson That is good enough. Original research by Jimmy Wales is no better than anyone elses. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
The article [[History of Wikipedia]] has the /encyclopedic/ content on this, which has been broadly stable since 2007 (revision as at today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipediaoldid=282677650#Early_roles_of_Wales_and_Sanger). While drawing attention to a page is a renowned and effective way to guarantee disruption on that topic, that is how /Wikipedia/ presently represents the history. Anyone can edit it, if it is not encyclopedically written. How you personally, or Jimmy personally, represent it /off wiki/, is your own off-wiki real world disagreement, and not a matter of editorial interest. It reflects on the two of you, but that's a personal view and unencyclopedic OR. More to the point: On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-li...@citizendium.orgwrote: The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. (Snip) My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. I don't agree with your characterization of the encyclopedia as being universally held, nor even that this would be the widest held view out there, sorry. I see gradual traction from the real world endorsing, not rejecting it, if a trend must be found. Your determination to hold anyone to anything (account or otherwise) is of course a matter for yourself and those involved; it's not salient to Wikipedia editing. Since Jimmy doesn't edit the pages much if at all these days, and the Foundation is independent of editorship (as you surely realize), none of this is relevant to encyclopedia writing. It's all politics and desires for perceptions and personal matters, to put it crudely. You say the encyclopedia's credibility and your reputation are at stake, but the encyclopedia entry is fairly well written and the reputational issue that is so important to you, is a real world dispute that most editors who write the content have no stake in at all. Answering your point to Sam Korn: Could I live with being a member of an encyclopedia whose two founders have both at some point acted poorly or said things that were ill considered, or sought personal reputation and aggrandisement? Yes -- because /none/ of that is going to matter a damn when someone looks up the Carbon atom, or Hamlet, or even the entry of the history of Wikipedia itself. I'm not engaged by you or Jimbo, I'm a volunteer writer on a project to produce an encyclopedia. Take the dispute and so long as the encyclopedic pages' content is reasonably well written, put the dispute somewhere else and I promise to ignore it completely. My personal view on who needs to change their stance in this, and who has not acted to the highest standard (one or both of you) is formed, but would not help the projects /encyclopedic content/. FT2 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
