![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sanger's Message to the FBI should be covered here. -- samj in out 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Wikipedia are not formatted this way. I prefer reference formatting in the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good potential source - "Deconstructing Wikipedia" - Feature Story Reed magazine June 2010 "Larry Sanger ’91 launched a revolution. Why does he want to start over?" -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was correct, Sanger should probably be blocked if he hasn't already been so if its true re his legal threats but that is no reason to delete the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed text that failed V. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk removed this referenced item which had four references and has received massive publicity. This was just a two sentence item buried in the article and hardly undue weight (and I actually thought it was written in a sympathetic tone telling his side and none of the fall out). I'm not sure why it would draw the ire of Quack or even Sanger. Americasroof ( talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a lengthy, if somewhat predictable, interview with Sanger here from Slate.com that might be of use in developing this article. Skomorokh 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this statement for the following reasons:
There will also be "gentle expert oversight" to provide some guidance, and presumably to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the manner of Stephen Colbert.
This article is now substantially out of date. I gained a title on CZ and no longer have any position there, and am no longer executive director at watchknow.org, but am starting new projects for the people behind WatchKnow. Also, on Monday I posted a 140-page essay, How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read ( http://www.larrysanger.org). I have also, as part of my work, started blogging on various topics, but especially baby reading. And, I have two children, 4 years and 2 months. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So, somebody updated the article, I see. But I do not blog for a living now. I am designing a new project & app to teach children how to read.
Also, "QuackGuru," if that quotation is not notable, no quotation from me is notable. Nothing I have said has been more widely quoted in the media, to my recollection. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Two other items I would change. First, with the possible exceptions of "Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism" and "Who Says We Know," my recent essay "Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age" is probably my most-cited, most-discussed, most-read work. Also, I believe "How and Why I Tuaght My Toddler to Read" deserves to be included because I've spent a couple of years working on it (off and on, of course), and represents a new direction in my career. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also of relevance: http://larrysanger.org/2010/12/plans-for-watchknow-reader/ -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This added a minor comment by Sanger. This is not notable to the subject of the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The article states, “Citizendium attempts to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the tradition of Stephen Colbert.” This may be based on a statement by the subject of the article, but it is opaque: what is meant by "the tradition of Stephen Colbert"? Does he often vandalize Wikipedia? Does he satirize Wikipedia or Wikivandals? Allusions (passing references; oblique or obscure mentions) should not be made to popular television unless absolutely necessary; never presume that the reader is familiar with it. Actually, wouldn't be just as good to delete the phrase "in the tradition of Stephen Colbert"? — Solo Owl ( talk) 03:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://larrysanger.org/2011/02/looong-interview-with-me-by-dan-schneider-in-cosmoetica/
Apparently, this site is on your "blacklist," which doesn't make any sense to me. Dan Schneider has interviewed quite a few prominent people and, whatever else you think of him, his set of interviews is a valid source of information on people covered by Wikipedia. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure having a PhD in Philosophy, having written a journal article and taught a couple of classes doesn't make one a philosopher, I don't think this should be in the article on the basis of the flimsy rationales in the archives (somebody said 'once a philosopher, always a philosopher' and another gave the impression that basically we needed something to fill the space because 'American Co-founder of Wikipedia' didn't work).
'Philosopher' is a pretty exclusive and reserved term, probably because it implies an expertise in.. well..thinking. In my view it encourages a reader to give extra weight to one's ideas and in the context of an article that is essentially just a list of Sanger's ideas that introduces a risk of compromising NPOV. I think we should be more careful about introducing this term (at least in the opening sentence), it has no bearing at all on his notability. He is (at a stretch) an academic and (more accurately) a lecturer.
Don't get me started on actually linking to his BA thesis, thats just bizarre. Bob House 884 ( talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the word philosopher from the opening sentence only, replacing it with lecturer. I've also removed the category tag 'epistemologists' since that category doesn't have clear entry criteria but does appear to be generally quite exclusive. I'd like to think I've been quite generous here and that there are a lot of other things which should have been removed, but I'd still suggest that the onus is on whoever wants to revert this to give a good reason why Mr Sanger is notable as a philosopher Bob House 884 ( talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sanger's Message to the FBI should be covered here. -- samj in out 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Wikipedia are not formatted this way. I prefer reference formatting in the body. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Good potential source - "Deconstructing Wikipedia" - Feature Story Reed magazine June 2010 "Larry Sanger ’91 launched a revolution. Why does he want to start over?" -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This was correct, Sanger should probably be blocked if he hasn't already been so if its true re his legal threats but that is no reason to delete the article. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed text that failed V. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
QuackGuru ( talk removed this referenced item which had four references and has received massive publicity. This was just a two sentence item buried in the article and hardly undue weight (and I actually thought it was written in a sympathetic tone telling his side and none of the fall out). I'm not sure why it would draw the ire of Quack or even Sanger. Americasroof ( talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a lengthy, if somewhat predictable, interview with Sanger here from Slate.com that might be of use in developing this article. Skomorokh 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed this statement for the following reasons:
There will also be "gentle expert oversight" to provide some guidance, and presumably to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the manner of Stephen Colbert.
This article is now substantially out of date. I gained a title on CZ and no longer have any position there, and am no longer executive director at watchknow.org, but am starting new projects for the people behind WatchKnow. Also, on Monday I posted a 140-page essay, How and Why I Taught My Toddler to Read ( http://www.larrysanger.org). I have also, as part of my work, started blogging on various topics, but especially baby reading. And, I have two children, 4 years and 2 months. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 16:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
So, somebody updated the article, I see. But I do not blog for a living now. I am designing a new project & app to teach children how to read.
Also, "QuackGuru," if that quotation is not notable, no quotation from me is notable. Nothing I have said has been more widely quoted in the media, to my recollection. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Two other items I would change. First, with the possible exceptions of "Why Wikipedia must jettison its anti-elitism" and "Who Says We Know," my recent essay "Individual Knowledge in the Internet Age" is probably my most-cited, most-discussed, most-read work. Also, I believe "How and Why I Tuaght My Toddler to Read" deserves to be included because I've spent a couple of years working on it (off and on, of course), and represents a new direction in my career. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Also of relevance: http://larrysanger.org/2010/12/plans-for-watchknow-reader/ -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This added a minor comment by Sanger. This is not notable to the subject of the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
The article states, “Citizendium attempts to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the tradition of Stephen Colbert.” This may be based on a statement by the subject of the article, but it is opaque: what is meant by "the tradition of Stephen Colbert"? Does he often vandalize Wikipedia? Does he satirize Wikipedia or Wikivandals? Allusions (passing references; oblique or obscure mentions) should not be made to popular television unless absolutely necessary; never presume that the reader is familiar with it. Actually, wouldn't be just as good to delete the phrase "in the tradition of Stephen Colbert"? — Solo Owl ( talk) 03:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
See http://larrysanger.org/2011/02/looong-interview-with-me-by-dan-schneider-in-cosmoetica/
Apparently, this site is on your "blacklist," which doesn't make any sense to me. Dan Schneider has interviewed quite a few prominent people and, whatever else you think of him, his set of interviews is a valid source of information on people covered by Wikipedia. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure having a PhD in Philosophy, having written a journal article and taught a couple of classes doesn't make one a philosopher, I don't think this should be in the article on the basis of the flimsy rationales in the archives (somebody said 'once a philosopher, always a philosopher' and another gave the impression that basically we needed something to fill the space because 'American Co-founder of Wikipedia' didn't work).
'Philosopher' is a pretty exclusive and reserved term, probably because it implies an expertise in.. well..thinking. In my view it encourages a reader to give extra weight to one's ideas and in the context of an article that is essentially just a list of Sanger's ideas that introduces a risk of compromising NPOV. I think we should be more careful about introducing this term (at least in the opening sentence), it has no bearing at all on his notability. He is (at a stretch) an academic and (more accurately) a lecturer.
Don't get me started on actually linking to his BA thesis, thats just bizarre. Bob House 884 ( talk) 01:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the word philosopher from the opening sentence only, replacing it with lecturer. I've also removed the category tag 'epistemologists' since that category doesn't have clear entry criteria but does appear to be generally quite exclusive. I'd like to think I've been quite generous here and that there are a lot of other things which should have been removed, but I'd still suggest that the onus is on whoever wants to revert this to give a good reason why Mr Sanger is notable as a philosopher Bob House 884 ( talk) 18:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)