This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk. |
Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Unproductive thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??-- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 ( talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|
...that COVID-19 vaccines are "not a vaccine". This statement is cited to Newsweek alone, is this an adequate source for such characterizations on a BLP? SmolBrane ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia." [1] Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views. [2] He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that." [3]
It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite podcast}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."
But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.
More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.
Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo ( talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk. |
Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Unproductive thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??-- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 ( talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|
...that COVID-19 vaccines are "not a vaccine". This statement is cited to Newsweek alone, is this an adequate source for such characterizations on a BLP? SmolBrane ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia." [1] Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views. [2] He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that." [3]
It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite podcast}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."
But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.
More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.
Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo ( talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)