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. |
My recent blog post, "Is There a New Geek Anti-Intellectualism?" was much-discussed, maybe as much as anything else I've written: http://larrysanger.org/2011/06/is-there-a-new-geek-anti-intellectualism/
Also, the name of my new early reading project is Reading Bear. The demo URL is http://watchknowreader.busedge.com/
-- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The new Reading Bear URL = http://www.ReadingBear.org/ -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If you need a "reliable source" for Reading Bear, try this TNW coverage. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Is this correct?
Good interview here - "Larry Sanger on co-founding Wikipedia and how online education could change the world". It's a possible source for items in the article. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
The result of the nomination for deletion was keep. The deletion debate is here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There was a suggestion in an edit summary that perhaps the hatnote pointing to User:Larry Sanger could be moved to the "External links" section of the article (as is done at Jimmy Wales). I would support this. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you edited the "Consequentialism" website. I am trying to create an open source project similar to Wikipedia, but that uses a different format. It states a belief like: "The end does not justify the means" and then lists reasons to agree or disagree separately. You are then able to click on any of the reasons, to find reasons to agree or disagree with them. I have created an example of how it might work here: http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21959922/The%20end%20does%20not%20justify%20the%20means However, I am looking for more people to help. The above site is the 7th result if you google “The end does not justify the means”. And so you would be providing direction to about 1,700 people a month, in a very organized way that I believe holds a lot of promise. If you would like to help edit the site, please contact me and I will give you the password. If you are interested more in the project, I explain it better here: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/ myclob ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Dr. Sanger is a person. Our perspective is easily skewed by his short-but-essential time at this project. Try to balance out the size of the sections accordingly.-- 207.62.246.64 ( talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This sentence didn't quite make sense and I had to go to original article to get enough context to parse the meaning. Is there a way to reword it to be more clear? Something like:
(I'm an employee of the WMF so I'm worried about a COI if I make the edit myself, so someone please review to see if I have it right.)
- - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) ( talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to take Sanger's announcements and press releases as fact rather readily, even for projects known to have largely failed. The "Citizendium" section reads like an advertisement for Citizendium, for example. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? The whole Citizendium section almost solely consists of quotes and information from Sanger press releases and maybe a couple other people who are for it. I actually did a check on Citizendium. [ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers A mere 25 people edited it in the last month. It's clearly an utter failure. There's a source from early 2012 quoted for the number of approved articles and number of articles. I was going to object, but Citizendium's front page gives the same numbers today - indicating it's, at best, barely active.
This is a puff piece. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 05:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are sources in the Larry Sanger#Citizendium section and the Larry Sanger#Contrast to Wikipedia section that verify the text. What needs to be rewritten when all the text is sourced and neutrally written. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Good work here by Adam Cuerden to identify the problems of this article. QuackGuru has been repeatedly warned against article ownership and disruptive editing, going back six years, and it appears he has not stopped. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru for some idea of the community's observations about this editor. I am going to trim this article of its over-reliance on primary sources, and its rambling into tangential topics, starting with the too-long Citizendium section. Binksternet ( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, in many cases, this reads more as an advertisement for Sanger's views and projects than an encyclopedic article about them. For example, the section on Citizendium - which appears to have failed utterly by now - talks at length about how it solves Wikipedia's problems, and overuses promotional press releases by Sanger, to the point of reading like an advertisement for why you should stop reading Wikipedia and hop over there.
These sorts of articles are hard to get perfect, but we can do so much better than this. This fails WP:WIAGA criterion 4, for not being reasonably neutral. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I deleted an email from Wales saying Sanger was the one who suggested a wiki. Here's the bit:
Wales stated in October 2001 that it was "Larry (who) had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project."
The reference URL is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html
The most important reason to delete this bit is that we have many other sources saying Sanger brought the wiki idea to Wales. The section about the "Origins of Wikipedia" fairly beats the reader over the head with various affirmations of Sanger's role, all because Wales tried to hide it. The beating we are giving to the reader is far too much.
I removed the above sentence and reference because it is not needed, and because it has problems with WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR. We should not use emails as reliable sources, and we should not use Wikipedia as a reference. Binksternet ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wales stated in 2005 that he had initially heard of the wiki concept in 2001 not from Sanger, but instead from Jeremy Rosenfeld.
Readable? The section, combined with "Nupedia and Wikipedia" before it, is a patchwork of redundancy. For instance, the following sentences cover the same material:
See how bad it is? It's terrible, an affront to the intelligence of our readers. I intend to blast through these two sections to streamline the prose. Binksternet ( talk) 10:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
"Citizendium was launched as a pilot in October 2006, before going public in March 2007. Citizendium – the citizens’ compendium of everything – is an English wiki-based online encyclopedia that aims to improve on what Wikipedia offers by providing increased reliability through stricter moderation and ‘expert oversight’. I asked Larry what the state of play with the project is in 2011 “Citizendium is still active”, he says. “It’s still being developed in the sense that people are still writing articles for it, and it’s still being maintained. I’m not overly concerned about funding at the moment, we got some nice donations in the last month, enough to keep us going for several months. And we’re probably going to start looking for some free hosting at some point." [2]
As of 2011, the state of the Citizendium project is still active and articles are being written and maintained.
The text is sourced. If an editor still thinks a 2011 source cannot support the text indefinitely is irrelevant. When sources are available in the future the article will be updated. We don't write text in the article for the future from non-existence sources or how editors personally feel about the future of Citizendium. So I made this change. I don't understand the weasel words tag when the text is sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Text in article: "Citizendium experts have the final say for article content[71][97]"[needs update]
"How? The big difference between Citizendium and Wikipedia will be the presence of "experts" on Citizendium who will have the final say in editing disputes. Just who are the experts, though? The plan is for the site's operators to post the ideal "credentials" of an editor, and then contributors themselves will decide if they fit the bill. In other words, one essentially appoints oneself to the position of expert. An editor must publish their own credentials online, and these credentials must be verifiable. I'm sorry Mbutu Ngangi, but you can't be an editor just because you say you have millions of dollars in Laos and five doctorates." [3]
"Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits. In other ways it promises to be very similar: the system requires users to sign up, it will also be based around a Wiki, it will strive to present a "Neutral Point of View"... and it will regularly be touting for donations." [4]
The text is sourced. Is there something editors missed? In what way the text needs updating? Do editors prefer to use this source instead. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, you're using 2006 sources, and acting as if they must apply to the present day. And Citable Versions is a subpage, not the main article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
In the end, these are borderline meaningless, when they're meant to contrast to Wikipedia. I can't see any evidence of any sort of real expert peer review on Citizendium at present; I presume there was more in the past, but there's not really a way to convincingly draw that distinction accurately anymore.
While we may not be able to discuss this, we have no need to include patently untrue statements. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Current text: "Sanger set up a system in which topic experts guide content within their area of expertise."
Suggestion: "Sanger set up a system in which experts work alongside other editors on the wiki."
I suggest we make this change. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[95][needs update]"
I can't find a current 2013 source to update the sentence. This is not dated information and I don't see evidence anything has changed. It needs updating if a current source is available. I propose we remove the tag and update the article when a newer source is presented. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Sanger has no plans to head the Citizendium project indefinitely; he has already announced his plan to step off the leadership team in two or three years. But what will the project look like at that time?" [9]
The text is sourced. Not sure why it was deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sanger formally proposed a "feeder" project for Nupedia titled "Let's make a wiki".
Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki". Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Archived from the original (Email) on 2003-04-14. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
This rarely seen primary source was deleted. There are downsides to deleting primary sources. Methinks the primary source should be restored. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the article improvements are rapidly returning this to GA, or even FA status. The major remaining issue is tenses - there's a fair amount of present tense where past tense would be more appropriate. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
One other bit s the end of the Post-Wikipedia section, starting at the bit marked "discuss". There's nothing inherently wrong with the material, but it seems like the content about his views on the purpose of the internet should be in a more general section, perhaps about Sanger's philosophy, rather than slotted in chronologically by when he said them.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
WatchKnowLearn is notable for its own article on Wikipedia. [10] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest this change because the reader does not understand what is the Infobitt project. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the bit about Sanger's opinion of what the internet is about. It was cited to an online video showing Sanger speaking to a conference in Mexico in 2011. http://vimeo.com/7178138 It's just Sanger talking, not a reporter telling us what is interesting or controversial about Sanger's speech. It is a primary source, the same as Sanger blogging. I think we need to concentrate on WP:SECONDARY sources to build this article. Binksternet ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As a reminder, I would like to point out that all of the active editors have helped to make this biography more readable, streamlined and relevant since I started deleting text and references in August 2013. It went from 82 kb to its current 55 kb because editors were determined to get just the right tone quality along with better accessibility from faster load times and less extraneous text derailing the reader. I believe there is more streamlining to accomplish with regard to the story of Wikipedia's origin; I still see too much redundancy. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is good for the biography to include a quote taken from the Sanger essay written for the Edge Foundation. The essay is preachy and unencyclopedic. It does not tell us what Sanger did, or what people thought of Sanger. It is a needless opportunity for Sanger to deliver his opinion as if Wikipedia is his blog. In this edit, QuackGuru offers Sanger a chance to explain how crucial it is to incorporate experts in the online encyclopedia model, but as it turns out, Sanger's 2007 thoughts were proven unimportant to the masses who chose not to take part in Citizendium. The quote is WP:UNDUE emphasis on an idea which has not been successful. Binksternet ( talk) 07:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If this was to be capable of standing alone as an article, it should be possible to make a well-sourced section in this article about it. If we can't even get enough sources for a decent paragraph here, we shouldn't suggest it as a stand-alone article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 08:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but said, at the time, that he is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[83] Sanger reported in November 2011 that at some point he will eventually start looking for free web hosting for Citizendium.[76]
There is no evidence Sanger abandoned the project. Shortening these sentences will imply to the reader Sanger abandoned the project. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=581374366&oldid=581331672
Seriously, QG. You remove the tags, but don't fix the problems? That section is awful. You're adding tons of promotional language, you're repeating the same points over and over, and, frankly, don't seem to be able to edit this article at all neutrally. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"So how did the project come about? Well, WatchKnowLearn’s benefactor saw a video of Sanger’s son, then 4 years-old, reading at a very advanced level, so he asked Sanger to create a free online reading program. “Reading Bear is a digitized version of the flashcard method I used with my son,” Sanger said. “While it is mainly intended for kids learning to read at the normal ages of 4-7, the simplicity of the program has allowed me and others to use Reading Bear with younger children." [14]
The text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"Reading Bear is a completely free website that teaches you (or your children) how to read. It uses the most basic and simple parts of reading, called phonics or phonetics, to teach them not only how to recognize words but how to read new ones without looking them up in the dictionary." [15] I propose using this source for the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit of mine was reverted by Adam Cuerden. The original edit changed a sentence regarding Citizendium: "The site has failed to attract anything like Wikipedia's audience, and its future seems grim as of 2011." I had changed the sentence to read: "The site has failed to attract a comparable audience to Wikipedia." This edit was reverted with the edit summary: "Your change is not what the source says".
The sentence is sourced to this article by Timothy Lee, and the way the sentence is written violates Wikipedia's policies—particularly WP:NPOV. Per NPOV, we must avoid stating opinions as facts, and aim to describe disputes, but not engage in them. A statement like "its future seems grim" is an opinion made by one person. We should avoid stating it so plainly in the article, as if to imply that Citizendium's future is grim as a fact. Rather than stating this so boldly in the article, I have changed it again to "Timothy B. Lee from Ars Technica noted in 2011 that Citizendium has failed to attract a large audience and that its future seems grim." This sentence is neutral—it notes that such an opinion was made, but does not assert that the opinion is true (we can't predict the future). I have also removed the part of the sentence comparing Wikipedia's audience to Citizendium's, because the source doesn't compare the two sites' audiences, but notes that Citizendium has not garnered a significant audience. I'm open to changes in wording if necessary. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
a matter which is subject to dispute or commonly considered to be subjective. Is the statement "Citizendium's future seems grim" an opinion? Absolutely. According to the source, Sanger himself "is bullish on Citizendium's accomplishments". As an encyclopedia, we cannot simply state as a fact "Citizendium's future seems grim" -- because it isn't a fact. Rather, we should write that Timothy Lee has said that Citizendium's future seems grim. An inline citation alone does not provide for neutrality. Mz7 ( talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
2009 source: http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2009/08/citizendium-founder-ready-to-jump-ship/ Citizendium is "at best a qualified success" and " increasingly in danger of being consigned to footnote status in the entry for 'Online Encyclopedias'." 2008 source: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/10/citizendium-is-still-doomed/ "Citizendium is still doomed" 2012, Citizendium's own blog: http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=603 "Right now there are only a small number of truly dedicated souls who continue to contribute new material on a regular basis, along with a scattering of others who jump in from time to time. [...] Even though we might have argued with some authors, at least they were present — and actively participating!"
The only other sources I could find were mere passing mentions of it in the middle of list of other websites similar to Wikipedia from the SOPA blackout (
http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-day-without-wikipedia-a-survival-guide-to-january-18-2012s-internet-blackout/ and
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248294/wikipedia_alternatives_what_to_do_when_wikipedia_goes_down.html ) and this:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/387790/jimmy-wales-rants-at-holistic-healers-petitioning-wikipedia "the site continues to this day, with around 16,700 articles." (both of which appear to be slightly-edited rehashes of an article from an article going around a few years previous, e.g.
http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia/ (2007).)
So, that's several more sources supporting the text as written,. Your move. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Dr.K. has moved the sentence to the Citizendium section and changed it to read: "The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future is uncertain." The size of Citizendium's audience in comparison to that of Wikipedia is an indisputable fact. I think "uncertain" is a better, more neutral description than "grim", so I won't push for an in-text attribution for that. Can we agree to retain this updated sentence? Mz7 ( talk) 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future seems grim.[18] I think this is a good compromise. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
QG's current proposal appears to be to add the underlined text: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and the likelihood of Citizendium overtaking Wikipedia seems fairly remote. ( diff)
Such proposals, along with "future seems grim", are completely inappropriate. Either produce a source for the situation now, or say nothing. Everyone with an Internet connection knows about Wikipedia, and only a handful of people have ever heard of Citizendium, so there is no need to let readers know what some source predicted in the distant past. Just state the facts, and let the editorializing occur in the mind of the reader. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no specific page number to verify each claim. The book is not needed to verify so many claims. Perhaps we can use the book if we can verify a claim using a specific page number. Using a book to make so many claims seems a bit promotional. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the AFD was direct/merge. Is there anything worth merging into this page? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is, in my opinion, one of my most important writings ever. Please consider adding it under my writings. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 20:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
"Larry Sanger joins Everipedia to put encyclopedias on the blockchain" – Sanger has been in web news this past week. See web search. –– A Fellow Editor– 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sanger has joined Everipedia. Someone should add that fact to this article. [16] 82.15.199.219 ( talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Neutrality is important because it supports independent judgment. It is only independent judgment that can be properly scientific. If you want to force the minds of your readers, then you're just being another flavor of dogmatist," Sanger wrote on his Wikipedia talk page on December 22, 2017. We can add this to the article. It is a self-published primary source. Thoughts. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Larry Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert most recent edit by Javnwekjkkji9. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D5B2:E302:AB85:EC2E ( talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
If one goes to Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia and looks through its history, one will see that the page was created by Larry Sanger. Does anybody think that Sanger's role in creating the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia could go in this article on Sanger? Vorbee ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[failed verification]) is an American Internet project developer, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[2][3][4]
The sources at the end of the sentence failed to verify July 16, 1968. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Also see MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." Content that fails verification does not conform to Verifiability policy. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
We are done here per policy. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{ failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." I explained my rationale based on policy in my edit summary and here on the talk page.
See MOS:CITELEAD "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." How could failed verification content conform to Verifiability policy? Does Verifiability policy allow for failed verification content?
This does not address that the content fails verification. Stating "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body [...] editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" - there are enough citations in the lead, and the DOB is not particularly controversial or contentious. the cite in the early life section is sufficient, and the lead merely repeats that date" [17] does not address that the content fails verification. The claim "should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" suggests the citation is redundant but when other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim it can't be redundant. If the citation was redundant then another citation in the first sentence would also verify the claim. The claim "there are enough citations in the lead" does not mean other citations at the end of the sentence verify the claim. Other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim. I can't think of any policy based argument for content to fail verification. The easiest way to resolve the issue would be to restore the non-redundant citation. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" That's patently nonsense. He is the co-founder. The weasel words are nonsensical. For a controversial article citations definitely belong in the lede. Replacing sourced content with unsourced or not verifiable content confirms citations are best for the lede for this article. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.I left the citations for stuff like his pronunciation which are not covered in the lead, but I don't think the rest are necessary, given that Sanger isn't that controversial outside of Wikipedia, and I attempted to address intra-Wikipedia controversy in the lead. My statements were only reworded versions of those already in the lead, which should have already been in the body. here is my version of the lead for reference when consensus wants to develop. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I've declined QuackGuru's full protection request. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) since a third opinion was given by Bastun after the filing of that request. Bastun's opinion can either be seen as a Third Opinion or a third editor entering the dispute (and Third Opinions are only available in disputes between exactly two editors). If addition moderated content dispute resolution is desired, consider making a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a Request for Comments after, in either case, carefully reading the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
best known for his roles as Westley in The Princess Bride, Robin Hood in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.In my personal opinion, this wording does not imply in the least that there is any doubt that he appeared in both movies as the respective characters, but only that he is potentially known for other, ostensibly lesser accomplishments as well. There certainly is no disrespect intended by saying so, and I don't think we are doing Mr. Sanger a disservice by stating it in those terms. I suppose you could argue that we are merely assuming that he is "best known" for that particular accomplishment, but it is certainly a common way of saying "this is what Wikipedia thinks his most important accomplishment is". One could possibly consider that WP:OR, but then again, if we were to simply state "Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia" as the first sentence of the lead, I think we are making the exact same statement. All the "best known for" does in this instance is clarify that there are other things he might also be known for that aren't mentioned in the first sentence. I hope this helps.
He is not currently an epistemologist. The last sentence of the first paragraph covers the epistemologist part. Sanger complained about similar content in the first sentence way back in 2008. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia, Citizendium, and Everipedia." is also problematic. They are not educational websites. He founded Citizendium. This was deleted. The previous wording was far better. QuackGuru ( talk) 12:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The lede is in very poor shape, especially the first sentence. There is way too many problems to list. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we focus on diff which adds "best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" to the lead. I know #Co-founder dispute deals with the topic, but that section is a lost cause as it tries to cover other points as well, and it got off to a bad start with QG's hard-to-understand claims about weasel words and a suggestion that "best known for" somehow casts doubt on whether "co-founder" is correct (QG: both those points are wrong).
Problems:
I think "best known for" was first added on 27 June 2019—I don't remember seeing it in this article before. Why should it be kept? Assertions are never kept on the basis of original research using Google or anything else. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Mass changes were made and almost all the citations were removed from the lede. Undoing years of consensus requires a RfC to gain broad support for such changes IMO. The lede was 4 solid paragraphs. 4 smaller paragraphs overall is not much content. The previous wording in the lede was well written and flowed better. For example, "Since his departure from Wikipedia he has been critical of the project, arguing that despite its merits Wikipedia lacks credibility due to a lack of respect for expertise and authority." This is not neutrally written. See "Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project.[15][16] He states that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise.[17]" This is better written without the use of the word "arguing". There are a lot more problems with the changes to the lede. See "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia..." That is more bias content. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You've been Reverted. Let's Discuss, per WP:BRD, and not just re-revert? What I meant above was the extra detail about Nupedia was not relevant for the lead. "Disappointed in the slow progress of Nupedia he suggested a wiki to solicit and receive articles to put through Nupedia's peer-review process, which led to the development and launch of Wikipedia in 2001." - 1.5 lines - is clear, concise, and an excellent summary of the later content. Certainly compared to the 2 lines it replaced. "Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored." Agreed. It isn't John M Wolfson's content that's poorly written, though, and there is nothing "vague" about it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit does not fix the problems. "He began to distance himself from Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is still misleading because it is vague. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Articlespace is not for a startruns aground WP:BOLD and WP:FINISH. I perceive the problem of redundancy and irrelevant little materials such as "He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska" in the old lead, so the
the version where there is no perceived problemsdoesn't exist, and even if it did reverting would only exacerbate the edit war and not be constructive, so the proper thing to do is to discuss the lead and do incremental changes as we are doing now. That said, I'm open to changing the lead incrementally per your suggestions. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you ignore BRD, revert while there's discussion ongoing, then issue me a templated warning?! Get real. You do not own this article, stop trying to act like its gatekeeper. And consider this your own edit-warring notice. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Wait, you're actually claiming CZ was not intended as a rival to WP?! O rly?! Ok, sorry, there's no way to take you seriously as an unbiased editor now. There is no "problematic content" - the "problem", such as it is, appears to be that it was not written by you, and that's your objection. Can you please stop with your pointy edits, such as adding an OR tag to "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia" - that's very much evident from reading the body of the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival".With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Just ... wow. Without prejudice to anything else you've said, that particular example is a textbook example of splitting hairs and is starting to compromise my assumption of good faith on your part. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See "Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco." [18]
See "See above thread." [19]
See Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half [20]
@ JosephABernstein: funny things are happening to the Larry Sanger article and it may be a result of a shortage of admins being able to deal with the problems.
See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site." [21] @ Dlohcierekim: what do you think? QuackGuru ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@ JosephABernstein: for your next piece you can mention the Fram ban effect and this article. Look around the talk page. Sourced content is being replaced with unsourced and bias content. This was the response. There are continued problems that are being ignored or not fixed. It is odd the citations are being deleted from the lede and then replaced with the content that is misleading or vague. It is even more odd admins are dong nothing about it. For example, "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." [23] No, that is patently untrue. Sanger did not join Nupedia because of his interest in the Interest. This is historical revisionism. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
See "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version. All I see above is an argument about verification and vague claims concerning "more clearly". What is more clear? You reverted to a version with "internet encyclopedia Wikipedia" in the first sentence. Do you really think someone reading this article would need that description? Regardless, it's standard to leave linked names on the understanding that the perplexed reader can click the link if they need clarification. Above you say "Slow growth of Nupedia" is not relevant for the lead, yet your revision includes "slow progress of Nupedia". The new version has "He began to be distanced" which is fluff for the lead, and is a total mistatement of the article which says "Sanger began to distance himself from it"." [24] - previous comment by User:Johnuniq on 10:12, 1 July 2019
There was no reply to this previous comment by User:Johnuniq. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version when no perceived issues with the previous version where identified. Again, please identify a perceived problem with the previous version. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The issues have not been fully addressed. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version. Sourced content in the lede was replaced with problematic unsourced content. This shows citations in the lede do benefit this article. When I can't verify the claims how are our readers going to be able to verify the claims in the lede for the rewritten content? The last stable version is on 04:29, 1 July 2019. The current lede is too vague and therefore less accurate than the previous version. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
QG might be their own worst enemy with too many edits and too many points raised. However, that may be due to the brush-off shown on this page. QG is very literal: by "false information", QG means information that is false—it's not a dig about fake news. I'm not saying that everything QG has proposed is optimum, but I don't see significant serious engagement. For example, the article Wikipedia mentions "education" only in a negative context, so QG's point 2 is literally correct—see educational website for what that term means. Repeated mentions of ownership are also just a deflection from the issues. It would be better to focus on arguments regarding specific content. Above I wrote "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version" where the response started by explaining elementary concepts such as WP:LEAD—please assume everyone here knows the basics and focus on the actual points. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
First section below lead, second sentence since 5 Nov 2013 -- "His father was a marine biologist and his mother took care of the children."
The reference says "His father was a seabird biologist; his mother took care of the children." Anyone else see this as beyond close paraphrasing?
Moriori (
talk)
23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
His father was a biologist and his mother a homemaker.Feel free to think of something better. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (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. |
My recent blog post, "Is There a New Geek Anti-Intellectualism?" was much-discussed, maybe as much as anything else I've written: http://larrysanger.org/2011/06/is-there-a-new-geek-anti-intellectualism/
Also, the name of my new early reading project is Reading Bear. The demo URL is http://watchknowreader.busedge.com/
-- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
The new Reading Bear URL = http://www.ReadingBear.org/ -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
If you need a "reliable source" for Reading Bear, try this TNW coverage. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Is this correct?
Good interview here - "Larry Sanger on co-founding Wikipedia and how online education could change the world". It's a possible source for items in the article. -- Seth Finkelstein ( talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
The result of the nomination for deletion was keep. The deletion debate is here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. There was a suggestion in an edit summary that perhaps the hatnote pointing to User:Larry Sanger could be moved to the "External links" section of the article (as is done at Jimmy Wales). I would support this. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw that you edited the "Consequentialism" website. I am trying to create an open source project similar to Wikipedia, but that uses a different format. It states a belief like: "The end does not justify the means" and then lists reasons to agree or disagree separately. You are then able to click on any of the reasons, to find reasons to agree or disagree with them. I have created an example of how it might work here: http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21959922/The%20end%20does%20not%20justify%20the%20means However, I am looking for more people to help. The above site is the 7th result if you google “The end does not justify the means”. And so you would be providing direction to about 1,700 people a month, in a very organized way that I believe holds a lot of promise. If you would like to help edit the site, please contact me and I will give you the password. If you are interested more in the project, I explain it better here: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/ myclob ( talk) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Dr. Sanger is a person. Our perspective is easily skewed by his short-but-essential time at this project. Try to balance out the size of the sections accordingly.-- 207.62.246.64 ( talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
This sentence didn't quite make sense and I had to go to original article to get enough context to parse the meaning. Is there a way to reword it to be more clear? Something like:
(I'm an employee of the WMF so I'm worried about a COI if I make the edit myself, so someone please review to see if I have it right.)
- - tychay (tchay@wikimedia) ( talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This article seems to take Sanger's announcements and press releases as fact rather readily, even for projects known to have largely failed. The "Citizendium" section reads like an advertisement for Citizendium, for example. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 03:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Seriously? The whole Citizendium section almost solely consists of quotes and information from Sanger press releases and maybe a couple other people who are for it. I actually did a check on Citizendium. [ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers A mere 25 people edited it in the last month. It's clearly an utter failure. There's a source from early 2012 quoted for the number of approved articles and number of articles. I was going to object, but Citizendium's front page gives the same numbers today - indicating it's, at best, barely active.
This is a puff piece. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 05:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Here are sources in the Larry Sanger#Citizendium section and the Larry Sanger#Contrast to Wikipedia section that verify the text. What needs to be rewritten when all the text is sourced and neutrally written. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Good work here by Adam Cuerden to identify the problems of this article. QuackGuru has been repeatedly warned against article ownership and disruptive editing, going back six years, and it appears he has not stopped. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru for some idea of the community's observations about this editor. I am going to trim this article of its over-reliance on primary sources, and its rambling into tangential topics, starting with the too-long Citizendium section. Binksternet ( talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Quite simply, in many cases, this reads more as an advertisement for Sanger's views and projects than an encyclopedic article about them. For example, the section on Citizendium - which appears to have failed utterly by now - talks at length about how it solves Wikipedia's problems, and overuses promotional press releases by Sanger, to the point of reading like an advertisement for why you should stop reading Wikipedia and hop over there.
These sorts of articles are hard to get perfect, but we can do so much better than this. This fails WP:WIAGA criterion 4, for not being reasonably neutral. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 11:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I deleted an email from Wales saying Sanger was the one who suggested a wiki. Here's the bit:
Wales stated in October 2001 that it was "Larry (who) had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project."
The reference URL is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html
The most important reason to delete this bit is that we have many other sources saying Sanger brought the wiki idea to Wales. The section about the "Origins of Wikipedia" fairly beats the reader over the head with various affirmations of Sanger's role, all because Wales tried to hide it. The beating we are giving to the reader is far too much.
I removed the above sentence and reference because it is not needed, and because it has problems with WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR. We should not use emails as reliable sources, and we should not use Wikipedia as a reference. Binksternet ( talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Wales stated in 2005 that he had initially heard of the wiki concept in 2001 not from Sanger, but instead from Jeremy Rosenfeld.
Readable? The section, combined with "Nupedia and Wikipedia" before it, is a patchwork of redundancy. For instance, the following sentences cover the same material:
See how bad it is? It's terrible, an affront to the intelligence of our readers. I intend to blast through these two sections to streamline the prose. Binksternet ( talk) 10:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
"Citizendium was launched as a pilot in October 2006, before going public in March 2007. Citizendium – the citizens’ compendium of everything – is an English wiki-based online encyclopedia that aims to improve on what Wikipedia offers by providing increased reliability through stricter moderation and ‘expert oversight’. I asked Larry what the state of play with the project is in 2011 “Citizendium is still active”, he says. “It’s still being developed in the sense that people are still writing articles for it, and it’s still being maintained. I’m not overly concerned about funding at the moment, we got some nice donations in the last month, enough to keep us going for several months. And we’re probably going to start looking for some free hosting at some point." [2]
As of 2011, the state of the Citizendium project is still active and articles are being written and maintained.
The text is sourced. If an editor still thinks a 2011 source cannot support the text indefinitely is irrelevant. When sources are available in the future the article will be updated. We don't write text in the article for the future from non-existence sources or how editors personally feel about the future of Citizendium. So I made this change. I don't understand the weasel words tag when the text is sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Text in article: "Citizendium experts have the final say for article content[71][97]"[needs update]
"How? The big difference between Citizendium and Wikipedia will be the presence of "experts" on Citizendium who will have the final say in editing disputes. Just who are the experts, though? The plan is for the site's operators to post the ideal "credentials" of an editor, and then contributors themselves will decide if they fit the bill. In other words, one essentially appoints oneself to the position of expert. An editor must publish their own credentials online, and these credentials must be verifiable. I'm sorry Mbutu Ngangi, but you can't be an editor just because you say you have millions of dollars in Laos and five doctorates." [3]
"Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits. In other ways it promises to be very similar: the system requires users to sign up, it will also be based around a Wiki, it will strive to present a "Neutral Point of View"... and it will regularly be touting for donations." [4]
The text is sourced. Is there something editors missed? In what way the text needs updating? Do editors prefer to use this source instead. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, you're using 2006 sources, and acting as if they must apply to the present day. And Citable Versions is a subpage, not the main article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 23:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
In the end, these are borderline meaningless, when they're meant to contrast to Wikipedia. I can't see any evidence of any sort of real expert peer review on Citizendium at present; I presume there was more in the past, but there's not really a way to convincingly draw that distinction accurately anymore.
While we may not be able to discuss this, we have no need to include patently untrue statements. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Current text: "Sanger set up a system in which topic experts guide content within their area of expertise."
Suggestion: "Sanger set up a system in which experts work alongside other editors on the wiki."
I suggest we make this change. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
"On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[95][needs update]"
I can't find a current 2013 source to update the sentence. This is not dated information and I don't see evidence anything has changed. It needs updating if a current source is available. I propose we remove the tag and update the article when a newer source is presented. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
"Sanger has no plans to head the Citizendium project indefinitely; he has already announced his plan to step off the leadership team in two or three years. But what will the project look like at that time?" [9]
The text is sourced. Not sure why it was deleted. QuackGuru ( talk) 18:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Sanger formally proposed a "feeder" project for Nupedia titled "Let's make a wiki".
Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki". Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Archived from the original (Email) on 2003-04-14. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
This rarely seen primary source was deleted. There are downsides to deleting primary sources. Methinks the primary source should be restored. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the article improvements are rapidly returning this to GA, or even FA status. The major remaining issue is tenses - there's a fair amount of present tense where past tense would be more appropriate. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
One other bit s the end of the Post-Wikipedia section, starting at the bit marked "discuss". There's nothing inherently wrong with the material, but it seems like the content about his views on the purpose of the internet should be in a more general section, perhaps about Sanger's philosophy, rather than slotted in chronologically by when he said them.
Adam Cuerden (
talk)
17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
WatchKnowLearn is notable for its own article on Wikipedia. [10] QuackGuru ( talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I suggest this change because the reader does not understand what is the Infobitt project. QuackGuru ( talk) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the bit about Sanger's opinion of what the internet is about. It was cited to an online video showing Sanger speaking to a conference in Mexico in 2011. http://vimeo.com/7178138 It's just Sanger talking, not a reporter telling us what is interesting or controversial about Sanger's speech. It is a primary source, the same as Sanger blogging. I think we need to concentrate on WP:SECONDARY sources to build this article. Binksternet ( talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As a reminder, I would like to point out that all of the active editors have helped to make this biography more readable, streamlined and relevant since I started deleting text and references in August 2013. It went from 82 kb to its current 55 kb because editors were determined to get just the right tone quality along with better accessibility from faster load times and less extraneous text derailing the reader. I believe there is more streamlining to accomplish with regard to the story of Wikipedia's origin; I still see too much redundancy. Binksternet ( talk) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is good for the biography to include a quote taken from the Sanger essay written for the Edge Foundation. The essay is preachy and unencyclopedic. It does not tell us what Sanger did, or what people thought of Sanger. It is a needless opportunity for Sanger to deliver his opinion as if Wikipedia is his blog. In this edit, QuackGuru offers Sanger a chance to explain how crucial it is to incorporate experts in the online encyclopedia model, but as it turns out, Sanger's 2007 thoughts were proven unimportant to the masses who chose not to take part in Citizendium. The quote is WP:UNDUE emphasis on an idea which has not been successful. Binksternet ( talk) 07:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If this was to be capable of standing alone as an article, it should be possible to make a well-sourced section in this article about it. If we can't even get enough sources for a decent paragraph here, we shouldn't suggest it as a stand-alone article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 08:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but said, at the time, that he is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[83] Sanger reported in November 2011 that at some point he will eventually start looking for free web hosting for Citizendium.[76]
There is no evidence Sanger abandoned the project. Shortening these sentences will imply to the reader Sanger abandoned the project. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=581374366&oldid=581331672
Seriously, QG. You remove the tags, but don't fix the problems? That section is awful. You're adding tons of promotional language, you're repeating the same points over and over, and, frankly, don't seem to be able to edit this article at all neutrally. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
"So how did the project come about? Well, WatchKnowLearn’s benefactor saw a video of Sanger’s son, then 4 years-old, reading at a very advanced level, so he asked Sanger to create a free online reading program. “Reading Bear is a digitized version of the flashcard method I used with my son,” Sanger said. “While it is mainly intended for kids learning to read at the normal ages of 4-7, the simplicity of the program has allowed me and others to use Reading Bear with younger children." [14]
The text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"Reading Bear is a completely free website that teaches you (or your children) how to read. It uses the most basic and simple parts of reading, called phonics or phonetics, to teach them not only how to recognize words but how to read new ones without looking them up in the dictionary." [15] I propose using this source for the article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This edit of mine was reverted by Adam Cuerden. The original edit changed a sentence regarding Citizendium: "The site has failed to attract anything like Wikipedia's audience, and its future seems grim as of 2011." I had changed the sentence to read: "The site has failed to attract a comparable audience to Wikipedia." This edit was reverted with the edit summary: "Your change is not what the source says".
The sentence is sourced to this article by Timothy Lee, and the way the sentence is written violates Wikipedia's policies—particularly WP:NPOV. Per NPOV, we must avoid stating opinions as facts, and aim to describe disputes, but not engage in them. A statement like "its future seems grim" is an opinion made by one person. We should avoid stating it so plainly in the article, as if to imply that Citizendium's future is grim as a fact. Rather than stating this so boldly in the article, I have changed it again to "Timothy B. Lee from Ars Technica noted in 2011 that Citizendium has failed to attract a large audience and that its future seems grim." This sentence is neutral—it notes that such an opinion was made, but does not assert that the opinion is true (we can't predict the future). I have also removed the part of the sentence comparing Wikipedia's audience to Citizendium's, because the source doesn't compare the two sites' audiences, but notes that Citizendium has not garnered a significant audience. I'm open to changes in wording if necessary. Respectfully, Mz7 ( talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
a matter which is subject to dispute or commonly considered to be subjective. Is the statement "Citizendium's future seems grim" an opinion? Absolutely. According to the source, Sanger himself "is bullish on Citizendium's accomplishments". As an encyclopedia, we cannot simply state as a fact "Citizendium's future seems grim" -- because it isn't a fact. Rather, we should write that Timothy Lee has said that Citizendium's future seems grim. An inline citation alone does not provide for neutrality. Mz7 ( talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
2009 source: http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2009/08/citizendium-founder-ready-to-jump-ship/ Citizendium is "at best a qualified success" and " increasingly in danger of being consigned to footnote status in the entry for 'Online Encyclopedias'." 2008 source: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/10/citizendium-is-still-doomed/ "Citizendium is still doomed" 2012, Citizendium's own blog: http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=603 "Right now there are only a small number of truly dedicated souls who continue to contribute new material on a regular basis, along with a scattering of others who jump in from time to time. [...] Even though we might have argued with some authors, at least they were present — and actively participating!"
The only other sources I could find were mere passing mentions of it in the middle of list of other websites similar to Wikipedia from the SOPA blackout (
http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-day-without-wikipedia-a-survival-guide-to-january-18-2012s-internet-blackout/ and
http://www.pcworld.com/article/248294/wikipedia_alternatives_what_to_do_when_wikipedia_goes_down.html ) and this:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/387790/jimmy-wales-rants-at-holistic-healers-petitioning-wikipedia "the site continues to this day, with around 16,700 articles." (both of which appear to be slightly-edited rehashes of an article from an article going around a few years previous, e.g.
http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia/ (2007).)
So, that's several more sources supporting the text as written,. Your move. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: Dr.K. has moved the sentence to the Citizendium section and changed it to read: "The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future is uncertain." The size of Citizendium's audience in comparison to that of Wikipedia is an indisputable fact. I think "uncertain" is a better, more neutral description than "grim", so I won't push for an in-text attribution for that. Can we agree to retain this updated sentence? Mz7 ( talk) 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Proposal: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future seems grim.[18] I think this is a good compromise. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
QG's current proposal appears to be to add the underlined text: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and the likelihood of Citizendium overtaking Wikipedia seems fairly remote. ( diff)
Such proposals, along with "future seems grim", are completely inappropriate. Either produce a source for the situation now, or say nothing. Everyone with an Internet connection knows about Wikipedia, and only a handful of people have ever heard of Citizendium, so there is no need to let readers know what some source predicted in the distant past. Just state the facts, and let the editorializing occur in the mind of the reader. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no specific page number to verify each claim. The book is not needed to verify so many claims. Perhaps we can use the book if we can verify a claim using a specific page number. Using a book to make so many claims seems a bit promotional. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
The result of the AFD was direct/merge. Is there anything worth merging into this page? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is, in my opinion, one of my most important writings ever. Please consider adding it under my writings. -- Larry Sanger ( talk) 20:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
"Larry Sanger joins Everipedia to put encyclopedias on the blockchain" – Sanger has been in web news this past week. See web search. –– A Fellow Editor– 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sanger has joined Everipedia. Someone should add that fact to this article. [16] 82.15.199.219 ( talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
"Neutrality is important because it supports independent judgment. It is only independent judgment that can be properly scientific. If you want to force the minds of your readers, then you're just being another flavor of dogmatist," Sanger wrote on his Wikipedia talk page on December 22, 2017. We can add this to the article. It is a self-published primary source. Thoughts. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Larry Sanger has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Revert most recent edit by Javnwekjkkji9. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D5B2:E302:AB85:EC2E ( talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
If one goes to Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia and looks through its history, one will see that the page was created by Larry Sanger. Does anybody think that Sanger's role in creating the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia could go in this article on Sanger? Vorbee ( talk) 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[failed verification]) is an American Internet project developer, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[2][3][4]
The sources at the end of the sentence failed to verify July 16, 1968. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Also see MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." Content that fails verification does not conform to Verifiability policy. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
We are done here per policy. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{ failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." I explained my rationale based on policy in my edit summary and here on the talk page.
See MOS:CITELEAD "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." How could failed verification content conform to Verifiability policy? Does Verifiability policy allow for failed verification content?
This does not address that the content fails verification. Stating "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body [...] editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" - there are enough citations in the lead, and the DOB is not particularly controversial or contentious. the cite in the early life section is sufficient, and the lead merely repeats that date" [17] does not address that the content fails verification. The claim "should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" suggests the citation is redundant but when other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim it can't be redundant. If the citation was redundant then another citation in the first sentence would also verify the claim. The claim "there are enough citations in the lead" does not mean other citations at the end of the sentence verify the claim. Other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim. I can't think of any policy based argument for content to fail verification. The easiest way to resolve the issue would be to restore the non-redundant citation. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
"best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" That's patently nonsense. He is the co-founder. The weasel words are nonsensical. For a controversial article citations definitely belong in the lede. Replacing sourced content with unsourced or not verifiable content confirms citations are best for the lede for this article. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.I left the citations for stuff like his pronunciation which are not covered in the lead, but I don't think the rest are necessary, given that Sanger isn't that controversial outside of Wikipedia, and I attempted to address intra-Wikipedia controversy in the lead. My statements were only reworded versions of those already in the lead, which should have already been in the body. here is my version of the lead for reference when consensus wants to develop. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I've declined QuackGuru's full protection request. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
A request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) since a third opinion was given by Bastun after the filing of that request. Bastun's opinion can either be seen as a Third Opinion or a third editor entering the dispute (and Third Opinions are only available in disputes between exactly two editors). If addition moderated content dispute resolution is desired, consider making a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a Request for Comments after, in either case, carefully reading the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)
best known for his roles as Westley in The Princess Bride, Robin Hood in Robin Hood: Men in Tights.In my personal opinion, this wording does not imply in the least that there is any doubt that he appeared in both movies as the respective characters, but only that he is potentially known for other, ostensibly lesser accomplishments as well. There certainly is no disrespect intended by saying so, and I don't think we are doing Mr. Sanger a disservice by stating it in those terms. I suppose you could argue that we are merely assuming that he is "best known" for that particular accomplishment, but it is certainly a common way of saying "this is what Wikipedia thinks his most important accomplishment is". One could possibly consider that WP:OR, but then again, if we were to simply state "Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia" as the first sentence of the lead, I think we are making the exact same statement. All the "best known for" does in this instance is clarify that there are other things he might also be known for that aren't mentioned in the first sentence. I hope this helps.
He is not currently an epistemologist. The last sentence of the first paragraph covers the epistemologist part. Sanger complained about similar content in the first sentence way back in 2008. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia, Citizendium, and Everipedia." is also problematic. They are not educational websites. He founded Citizendium. This was deleted. The previous wording was far better. QuackGuru ( talk) 12:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The lede is in very poor shape, especially the first sentence. There is way too many problems to list. QuackGuru ( talk) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Can we focus on diff which adds "best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" to the lead. I know #Co-founder dispute deals with the topic, but that section is a lost cause as it tries to cover other points as well, and it got off to a bad start with QG's hard-to-understand claims about weasel words and a suggestion that "best known for" somehow casts doubt on whether "co-founder" is correct (QG: both those points are wrong).
Problems:
I think "best known for" was first added on 27 June 2019—I don't remember seeing it in this article before. Why should it be kept? Assertions are never kept on the basis of original research using Google or anything else. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Mass changes were made and almost all the citations were removed from the lede. Undoing years of consensus requires a RfC to gain broad support for such changes IMO. The lede was 4 solid paragraphs. 4 smaller paragraphs overall is not much content. The previous wording in the lede was well written and flowed better. For example, "Since his departure from Wikipedia he has been critical of the project, arguing that despite its merits Wikipedia lacks credibility due to a lack of respect for expertise and authority." This is not neutrally written. See "Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project.[15][16] He states that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise.[17]" This is better written without the use of the word "arguing". There are a lot more problems with the changes to the lede. See "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia..." That is more bias content. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You've been Reverted. Let's Discuss, per WP:BRD, and not just re-revert? What I meant above was the extra detail about Nupedia was not relevant for the lead. "Disappointed in the slow progress of Nupedia he suggested a wiki to solicit and receive articles to put through Nupedia's peer-review process, which led to the development and launch of Wikipedia in 2001." - 1.5 lines - is clear, concise, and an excellent summary of the later content. Certainly compared to the 2 lines it replaced. "Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored." Agreed. It isn't John M Wolfson's content that's poorly written, though, and there is nothing "vague" about it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This edit does not fix the problems. "He began to distance himself from Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is still misleading because it is vague. QuackGuru ( talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Articlespace is not for a startruns aground WP:BOLD and WP:FINISH. I perceive the problem of redundancy and irrelevant little materials such as "He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska" in the old lead, so the
the version where there is no perceived problemsdoesn't exist, and even if it did reverting would only exacerbate the edit war and not be constructive, so the proper thing to do is to discuss the lead and do incremental changes as we are doing now. That said, I'm open to changing the lead incrementally per your suggestions. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you ignore BRD, revert while there's discussion ongoing, then issue me a templated warning?! Get real. You do not own this article, stop trying to act like its gatekeeper. And consider this your own edit-warring notice. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Wait, you're actually claiming CZ was not intended as a rival to WP?! O rly?! Ok, sorry, there's no way to take you seriously as an unbiased editor now. There is no "problematic content" - the "problem", such as it is, appears to be that it was not written by you, and that's your objection. Can you please stop with your pointy edits, such as adding an OR tag to "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia" - that's very much evident from reading the body of the article. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival".With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Just ... wow. Without prejudice to anything else you've said, that particular example is a textbook example of splitting hairs and is starting to compromise my assumption of good faith on your part. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See "Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco." [18]
See "See above thread." [19]
See Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half [20]
@ JosephABernstein: funny things are happening to the Larry Sanger article and it may be a result of a shortage of admins being able to deal with the problems.
See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site." [21] @ Dlohcierekim: what do you think? QuackGuru ( talk) 19:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
@ JosephABernstein: for your next piece you can mention the Fram ban effect and this article. Look around the talk page. Sourced content is being replaced with unsourced and bias content. This was the response. There are continued problems that are being ignored or not fixed. It is odd the citations are being deleted from the lede and then replaced with the content that is misleading or vague. It is even more odd admins are dong nothing about it. For example, "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." [23] No, that is patently untrue. Sanger did not join Nupedia because of his interest in the Interest. This is historical revisionism. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
See "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version. All I see above is an argument about verification and vague claims concerning "more clearly". What is more clear? You reverted to a version with "internet encyclopedia Wikipedia" in the first sentence. Do you really think someone reading this article would need that description? Regardless, it's standard to leave linked names on the understanding that the perplexed reader can click the link if they need clarification. Above you say "Slow growth of Nupedia" is not relevant for the lead, yet your revision includes "slow progress of Nupedia". The new version has "He began to be distanced" which is fluff for the lead, and is a total mistatement of the article which says "Sanger began to distance himself from it"." [24] - previous comment by User:Johnuniq on 10:12, 1 July 2019
There was no reply to this previous comment by User:Johnuniq. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version when no perceived issues with the previous version where identified. Again, please identify a perceived problem with the previous version. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The issues have not been fully addressed. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version. Sourced content in the lede was replaced with problematic unsourced content. This shows citations in the lede do benefit this article. When I can't verify the claims how are our readers going to be able to verify the claims in the lede for the rewritten content? The last stable version is on 04:29, 1 July 2019. The current lede is too vague and therefore less accurate than the previous version. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
QG might be their own worst enemy with too many edits and too many points raised. However, that may be due to the brush-off shown on this page. QG is very literal: by "false information", QG means information that is false—it's not a dig about fake news. I'm not saying that everything QG has proposed is optimum, but I don't see significant serious engagement. For example, the article Wikipedia mentions "education" only in a negative context, so QG's point 2 is literally correct—see educational website for what that term means. Repeated mentions of ownership are also just a deflection from the issues. It would be better to focus on arguments regarding specific content. Above I wrote "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version" where the response started by explaining elementary concepts such as WP:LEAD—please assume everyone here knows the basics and focus on the actual points. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
First section below lead, second sentence since 5 Nov 2013 -- "His father was a marine biologist and his mother took care of the children."
The reference says "His father was a seabird biologist; his mother took care of the children." Anyone else see this as beyond close paraphrasing?
Moriori (
talk)
23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
His father was a biologist and his mother a homemaker.Feel free to think of something better. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)