This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk. |
Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Should we replace the current version with the proposed draft? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Option A (proposed draft)
Option B (current version)
Option C (new proposal)(place third option here) Comments on proposed draft
Several examples of the current issues: See current wording in this article: See news article: "Freed from Nupedia’s constraints, Wikipedia took off quickly. Yet to hear Sanger’s version of events, things started to go off the rails just months after it was launched." [1] See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See accurate content in proposed draft: I also added new content to the lede and body: One example of the new content in the lede: "He ended his participation in Wikipedia in 2002 because of a lack of quality control.[12]" This new content replaces "...but became increasingly disillusioned with the project and left it in 2002." One example of the new content in the body: "After a few failed attempts to assemble experts to review articles, he eventually left Wikipedia in January 2003.[18]" You may be thinking why I didn't revert the changes. I tried before. I was reverted by Bastun. [2] [3] [4] There are numerous more examples of problematic content. For example, on 19:06, 17 August 2019 content about Critics of child-porn allegation was added. But there are no "Critics" accusing Sanger and it is a blog website. The content fails verification and the source is unreliable. Another recent example: on 19:55, 17 August 2019, John M Wolfson added the co-founder debate to the lede. The previous month on 05:42, 28 June 2019, user Johnuniq stated: "There is no reason to mention Wales in the lead. This is an article about Sanger and what he did, and the lead should focus on that. Also, mentioning Wales introduces the founder drama, but the lead should not focus on that." On 05:46, 28 June 2019 user John M Wolfson agreed it should not be in the lede: "...there's no reason to bring it up in the lead...". There is also the problem with incoherent wording. See Larry Sanger#Nupedia and Wikipedia. This section disorganised and hard to follow. It also contains WP:SYN violations. For example, see "While such issues..." and see "Sanger responded to these trends...". Unsupported weasel words or misleading weasel words such as "accused" should be replaced with more neutral words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. See MOS:ACCUSED. One of the words to look out for is "accused". Numerous news articles were deleted and replaced with a book written by Andrew Lih. The entire book is not freely available to read online, while the news articles are freely available to read. I also noticed that there is the content cited to the book that fails verification. For example, see "At the Wizards of OS conference in September 2006, Sanger announced the launch of a new wiki-based encyclopedia called Citizendium—short for "citizens' compendium"—as a fork of Wikipedia.[54] " Sourced content should not be replaced with failed verification. Because anyone can edit any page, there are people who write skewed articles. Opaque or overgeneralised content in the lede is counterintuitive for our readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject. There is currently content in the lede as well as the body that is misleading or biased. I think it would be best to expunge the content not found any source. This is in accordance with core policies WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as WP:RS. It is best to restore the citations in the lede for this article, especially when cited content was replaced with unsourced biased content. See MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." The current lede does not conform to Verifiability and other policies. Content likely to be challenged must have an inline citation, according to MOS:LEADCITE. This is not my rule. This is Wikipedia's consensus. Good articles contain citations in the lede such as Lily Cole [5] and Bomis. [6] It is better to eliminate guesswork and stick to verifiable content. This is best accomplished with inline citations in the lede for articles that have a history of problematic content. There is a lot to read for this proposal because there is a lot of problematic content. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep the discussion in one place@ QuackGuru: I see you're discussing this on Randy Kryn's talk page in the section titled " Lede". Please keep all relevant comments together on this page. Thanks! YoPienso ( talk) 22:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm going to collapse this unproductive discussion because QuackGuru is actively ignoring policies and input from other editors, including users Bastun, John M Wolfson, Horse Eye Jack, Dicklyon, Randy Kryn, and myself. YoPienso ( talk) 21:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Unproductive thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??-- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 ( talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|
There are 2 examples of Wikipedia Knockoffs that have different political leans Rational Wiki and Conservapedia are on opposite sides of the political spectrum both thinking Wikipedia is too bias hence they felt the need to make those.
While one is more Christian aligned the other is more aligned with the Intersectional faith both mostly focus on politicized subjects or "their side of the argument"
We should be looking at it from a neutral perspective ignore weather its right or left bias and investigate if there is any bias.
I wouldn't call this a left right issue more an ideological one i recommend reading The ultracalvinist hypothesis: in perspective by Mencius Moldbug which covers the contemporary left in the Occident and the Puritan hypothesis
relevant but knowing what Larry Sanger thinks about this type of thing might help,
If Wikipedia is found to be bias should that not be taken as constructive criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.203.23 ( talk) 01:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Mostly irrelevant to the article itself
|
---|
I was curious about this guy years ago, and was intrigued by his attempts to counter Wikipedia's apparent influence with projects like Citizendium. Just a few days ago, I looked him up again, and his Twitter feed reads like something off of InfoWars. Has he always been this way? Is it some kind of hyper-contrarianism? It didn't seem like there were signs of this back when he had news articles written about him. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:C11D:E899:8C21:5BE3 ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Um... I cannot see any connection to improving the article in this paragraph. You know, improving the article? Purpose of Talk pages? WP:NOTFORUM? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add that he changed his mind on WikiLeaks - https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1341483236493565954 185.143.144.166 ( talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The photo of Sanger is about sixteen years old. Is there a more recent one that we could use? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
...that COVID-19 vaccines are "not a vaccine". This statement is cited to Newsweek alone, is this an adequate source for such characterizations on a BLP? SmolBrane ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia." [1] Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views. [2] He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that." [3]
It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite podcast}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am no longer a Phunware advisor, which was a one-year thing and by mutual agreement not renewed. -- Larry Sanger ( talk)— Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."
But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.
More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.
Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo ( talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Larry Sanger article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk. |
Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Should we replace the current version with the proposed draft? QuackGuru ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Option A (proposed draft)
Option B (current version)
Option C (new proposal)(place third option here) Comments on proposed draft
Several examples of the current issues: See current wording in this article: See news article: "Freed from Nupedia’s constraints, Wikipedia took off quickly. Yet to hear Sanger’s version of events, things started to go off the rails just months after it was launched." [1] See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See current wording in this article: See accurate content in proposed draft: See accurate content in proposed draft: I also added new content to the lede and body: One example of the new content in the lede: "He ended his participation in Wikipedia in 2002 because of a lack of quality control.[12]" This new content replaces "...but became increasingly disillusioned with the project and left it in 2002." One example of the new content in the body: "After a few failed attempts to assemble experts to review articles, he eventually left Wikipedia in January 2003.[18]" You may be thinking why I didn't revert the changes. I tried before. I was reverted by Bastun. [2] [3] [4] There are numerous more examples of problematic content. For example, on 19:06, 17 August 2019 content about Critics of child-porn allegation was added. But there are no "Critics" accusing Sanger and it is a blog website. The content fails verification and the source is unreliable. Another recent example: on 19:55, 17 August 2019, John M Wolfson added the co-founder debate to the lede. The previous month on 05:42, 28 June 2019, user Johnuniq stated: "There is no reason to mention Wales in the lead. This is an article about Sanger and what he did, and the lead should focus on that. Also, mentioning Wales introduces the founder drama, but the lead should not focus on that." On 05:46, 28 June 2019 user John M Wolfson agreed it should not be in the lede: "...there's no reason to bring it up in the lead...". There is also the problem with incoherent wording. See Larry Sanger#Nupedia and Wikipedia. This section disorganised and hard to follow. It also contains WP:SYN violations. For example, see "While such issues..." and see "Sanger responded to these trends...". Unsupported weasel words or misleading weasel words such as "accused" should be replaced with more neutral words. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. See MOS:ACCUSED. One of the words to look out for is "accused". Numerous news articles were deleted and replaced with a book written by Andrew Lih. The entire book is not freely available to read online, while the news articles are freely available to read. I also noticed that there is the content cited to the book that fails verification. For example, see "At the Wizards of OS conference in September 2006, Sanger announced the launch of a new wiki-based encyclopedia called Citizendium—short for "citizens' compendium"—as a fork of Wikipedia.[54] " Sourced content should not be replaced with failed verification. Because anyone can edit any page, there are people who write skewed articles. Opaque or overgeneralised content in the lede is counterintuitive for our readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject. There is currently content in the lede as well as the body that is misleading or biased. I think it would be best to expunge the content not found any source. This is in accordance with core policies WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as WP:RS. It is best to restore the citations in the lede for this article, especially when cited content was replaced with unsourced biased content. See MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." The current lede does not conform to Verifiability and other policies. Content likely to be challenged must have an inline citation, according to MOS:LEADCITE. This is not my rule. This is Wikipedia's consensus. Good articles contain citations in the lede such as Lily Cole [5] and Bomis. [6] It is better to eliminate guesswork and stick to verifiable content. This is best accomplished with inline citations in the lede for articles that have a history of problematic content. There is a lot to read for this proposal because there is a lot of problematic content. QuackGuru ( talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep the discussion in one place@ QuackGuru: I see you're discussing this on Randy Kryn's talk page in the section titled " Lede". Please keep all relevant comments together on this page. Thanks! YoPienso ( talk) 22:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
|
I'm going to collapse this unproductive discussion because QuackGuru is actively ignoring policies and input from other editors, including users Bastun, John M Wolfson, Horse Eye Jack, Dicklyon, Randy Kryn, and myself. YoPienso ( talk) 21:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Unproductive thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??-- 1.152.111.77 ( talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 ( talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?-- Skylax30 ( talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
|
There are 2 examples of Wikipedia Knockoffs that have different political leans Rational Wiki and Conservapedia are on opposite sides of the political spectrum both thinking Wikipedia is too bias hence they felt the need to make those.
While one is more Christian aligned the other is more aligned with the Intersectional faith both mostly focus on politicized subjects or "their side of the argument"
We should be looking at it from a neutral perspective ignore weather its right or left bias and investigate if there is any bias.
I wouldn't call this a left right issue more an ideological one i recommend reading The ultracalvinist hypothesis: in perspective by Mencius Moldbug which covers the contemporary left in the Occident and the Puritan hypothesis
relevant but knowing what Larry Sanger thinks about this type of thing might help,
If Wikipedia is found to be bias should that not be taken as constructive criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.203.23 ( talk) 01:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Mostly irrelevant to the article itself
|
---|
I was curious about this guy years ago, and was intrigued by his attempts to counter Wikipedia's apparent influence with projects like Citizendium. Just a few days ago, I looked him up again, and his Twitter feed reads like something off of InfoWars. Has he always been this way? Is it some kind of hyper-contrarianism? It didn't seem like there were signs of this back when he had news articles written about him. 2601:1C0:4500:BFD0:C11D:E899:8C21:5BE3 ( talk) 04:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Um... I cannot see any connection to improving the article in this paragraph. You know, improving the article? Purpose of Talk pages? WP:NOTFORUM? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 07:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add that he changed his mind on WikiLeaks - https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1341483236493565954 185.143.144.166 ( talk) 22:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The photo of Sanger is about sixteen years old. Is there a more recent one that we could use? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
...that COVID-19 vaccines are "not a vaccine". This statement is cited to Newsweek alone, is this an adequate source for such characterizations on a BLP? SmolBrane ( talk) 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia." [1] Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views. [2] He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that." [3]
It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite podcast}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
:3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I am no longer a Phunware advisor, which was a one-year thing and by mutual agreement not renewed. -- Larry Sanger ( talk)— Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."
But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.
More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.
Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo ( talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)