Talk:Larry Sanger

Proposed draft

Should we replace the current version with the proposed draft? QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended content

Option A (proposed draft) Yes, as proposer. I support replacing the current version with the proposed draft. There are many discrepancies or imprecise content in the lede and body. This proposal includes replacing misinformation in the lede and body and restoring the citations and the wikilinks to the lede. The current version contains inaccurate content in the lede that is not supported by any source in the body. After the rewritten content was challenged, no verification was presented. The lede is poorly written because it contains opaque or ambiguous content, while the proposed draft is accurate and succinct. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Yes The proposed draft is superior. HAL333 23:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Option B (current version) Oppose current version per 'Comments on proposed draft' below. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Option C (new proposal) (place third option here) Comments on proposed draft Background: The rewriting of history (re-interpretation of the historical record) has happened on Wikipedia. For example, this edit in March 2009 added the date "in 1991". That edit led to this investigation about a decade later in regards to the date "1991". Several examples of the current issues: See current wording in this article: Sanger later grew disillusioned with Wikipedia,[26]… It is misleading and vague. The sentence goes on to state: …saying by mid-2001 its community… It is a WP:SYN violation to combine different statements in this way. 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: Wikipedia grew rapidly, but according to Sanger only months after it was launched things began to go astray.[41] That's accurately written content. See current wording in this article: While studying at college, Sanger developed an interest in using the internet for education and joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000. It was not because Sanger had an interest in the Internet that he "joined" Nupedia. He also did not "join" Nupedia. He started Nupedia. See accurate content in proposed draft: In college he became interested in the Internet and its potential as a publishing outlet.[7] See accurate content in proposed draft: Seeking employment online, Sanger joined Bomis to start an online encyclopedia called Nupedia[8] as editor-in-chief in 2000.[9] See current wording in this article: Besides the Internet, Sanger's interests have been focused mainly on philosophy—in particular epistemology, early modern philosophy, and ethics. This is fails verification content. I can't find any source in the body where it supports he focused "mainly" on philosophy outside of his interest in the Internet. The part "...early modern philosophy, and ethics..." also fails verification. See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger's philosophical interests has focused on epistemology.[7] See current wording in this article: Wales had interacted with Sanger on mailing lists.[12] See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger had first come into contact with Wales in 1994 when he subscribed to Wales' mailing list entitled "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy."[8] Also see Wales, who had gotten the idea from DMOZ, wanted it to be a free-content encyclopedia, using volunteer editors.[33] See current wording in this article: He founded Citizendium in 2006 to compete with Wikipedia. This is mentioned in the lede but not the body. Sanger did not start Citizendium "to compete" Wikipedia. See accurate content in proposed draft: The issue over the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles led Sanger to unveil plans for a new wiki-based encyclopedia called Citizendium,[75] a "citizens' compendium of everything".[76] See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger started an alternative online encyclopedia to Wikipedia called Citizendium in 2006.[15] The body states Sanger started a pilot version of Citizendium on October 17, 2006.[85] Citizendium officially launched on March 25, 2007.[56] 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) Nope, for now Neutral, for now, as many of the proposed edits do improve the page. Just wanted the lede sentence to focus on Sanger's remarkable historical achievements with Wikipdia, where the "meat" of his notability lies (previous added December 31, as the roaring '20s can be heard quickly approaching) (EDIT: more comments needed, my objection is biased toward historical importance), right off the bat the most notable things Sanger has done is co-founding, naming, and setting much of the policy for Wikipedia. one of which is now slightly buried in the first sentence in back of another thing he's done and the naming and policy descriptor is not included. That's all I've read so far, but the present lede sentence is much better. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC) As I mentioned above, my "nope" was "for now" because Sanger's co-founding, naming, and creating much of Wikipedia's policy is his most notable work. Not saying that QuackGuru's rewrite isn't first-rate and accurate, and that the page needs such a rewrite, only that Sanger's accomplishments with Wikipedia are his most notable to date and deserve first-sentence focus. Keeping those points first and foremost seem appropriate and, as QuackGuru has pointed out on my talk page (which I've asked them to continue here and not there) they are not cited. Did Sanger co-found Wikipedia (the idea to act on creating a collaborative encyclopedia was Wales's idea for Nupiedia, not Sangers, but he and Sanger put the thing together and "launched" it)? did he name it?, and did he create much of the original policy? Since I added those points I should say that besides the co-founding I was going off background knowledge from Sanger's and others blog and comments and not generally cited media material, and from the BLP policy this is probably heresay, not cited, and should be tossed out with the bathwater. If so, there is little connecting Sanger to these major historical accomplishments, and including them may be more of an ignore all rules inside-baseball addition. In this case, ignoring all rules seems to me to be the better approach. Yet as QG points out, those of us who know the history may overemphasize it when it comes to Wikipedia-related articles. Since I am biased towards inclusion of these points up front, without being able to cite reliable sources, I wanted to expand on my reasoning. Keeping Sanger's naming of the project and the extent that he formulated initial policy may come down to "ignore all rules", so there is policy-based reason to change it. Hopefully more editors will weigh-in to sift through these differing points of view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Oppose pending input from others. We were over this several months ago; LEADCITE does not mandate citations in the lead, and none of what is currently in the lead rises to the standard of requiring any. (The current version still has a citation in the lead where the content is not in the body.) I did replace those news articles with Lih as Lih is a much more reliable source (still imperfect, looking at it, but he's been at least published, helping verifiability a lot); indeed, quite a few news articles are still in the article. I personally think that the current lead is better written than the proposed draft, but that's just me. Of course, if you do have useful content that can go into the body please do feel free to add it in. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC) @Johnuniq and Bastun: sorry to drag you two back into this, but I think you would have something to say.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Also, this article was demoted from Good Article status in 2015 due to pro-Sanger/Citizendium bias. Sanger's reporting the images did indeed cause quite a controversy, as Sanger himself acknowledged. It would violate NPOV to not include criticism of Sanger's decision to report them. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Option B (oppose) the vast majority of these don't strike me as improvements. Is the Michael Miller link supposed to be a joke? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC) Option B. What, seriously? "I don't like it when I can't win consensus, so I'm going to write my own version from whole cloth"?! No. That's not how Wikipedia works. Some of the proposed changes are good, some are no better are or actually worse than what's here now. No. (Also, the way the "vote" has been set up is... confusing. QG seems to be suggesting we comment under each option. Nope, not doing that, either. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC) Agreed that some of the proposed changes are good, and improve the page. Let's concentrate on those and give Quack Guru credit for putting so much attention on those particular improvements. And agreed that this type of set-up is confusing, but it can be worked through (maybe after New Year's). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC) @Randy Kryn: I agree with you as well that some modifications to the body are improvements and should be included into the main article. What I'm less sure on is QG's motivations of requesting this RfC. In case you don't know, QG and I, along with others such as Bastun and Johnuniq, were engaged in a fairly heated editing dispute a couple of months ago that lasted for a couple of weeks and ended up with an (ultimately inconclusive) visit at the edit-warring board. The nexus of the dispute was my attempts to improve the lead to remove the unnecessary LEADCITEs (standard practice for FAs is to not have them unless needed, and only the first one is needed, IMO); QG did not react appropriately to my attempted changes, accusing me of spreading "false information" and trying twice to get the page fully protected. He archived the discussions just before requesting this RfC. I believe that his attempts with forcing this whole draft through an RfC is an attempt to sidestep the consensus that had developed in those discussions. While global consensus does override local consensus, and QG's unacceptable behavior is not grounds for rejecting the draft per se, I cannot assume good faith on QG's part in introducing this RfC. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Thanks. I wasn't aware of the previous discussion. One of their main points is that Sanger is not being given enough credit for his role in the creation and development of Nupedia (important historically as the direct precursor of Wikipedia). If that information is accurate and cited would that be a place to include some of their edits? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC) According to The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia by Andrew Lih, Wales hired Sanger to head up the project, which is exactly what our article says. Sanger is far better known for his work on Wikipedia than on Nupedia for the simple reason Wikipedia is far better known. It still exists and is an ongoing, high-profile project, while Nupedia is a historical footnote. YoPienso (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC) Oppose simply because the present version is better. It flows, whereas the proposed Option A is choppy. It focuses on Wikipedia while acknowledging his other projects. One improvement to the current opening sentence would be, "is an American internet project developer best known as the co-founder (with Jimmy Wales) of the internet encyclopedia Wikipedia." Also, Option A has way too many citations. YoPienso (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Oppose replacing current version with a whole new one. Wikipedia works incrementally, respecting the work of previous contributors. It is an unfair burden to ask editors to rate a whole new version that may contain any variety of changes that in isolation could be better understood and possibly not seen as improvements. Dicklyon (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC) Oppose all efforts to replace current article with a unilateral version mostly per WP:OWN. Dicklyon and others above speak well, and as much as I don't think there are any impure motives, I think this is a poorly conceived effort. QG, I admire your dedication to the project, but you truly need to learn to back away and allow others to edit your pet project articles. I don't doubt your good intentions, but the tenacious efforts you often display don't really help the project in the "big picture" sense. The never give in, never back down, never give up qualities can be admirable traits for many things - but they tend to hinder our project when applied to collaboration in the long run. It forces people to say "what's the use" and walk away when they bring good efforts to the table. — Ched (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2020 (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) Yes, we've had a semi-long discussion, and best wishes for the holidays, and I've just suggested that Quack Guru "nom" just one sentence and offer suggested changes in that one sentence. To see how it flies. The above discussion asks for large-scale controversial changes which seem to be too much to nominate at one time. Few have made a cohesive mental map of the whole thing and its contrasting points of view, I know I haven't. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Randy, and season's greetings to you, too. YoPienso (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I am really not a fan of having improvements/edits to this page decided at some other unannounced venue, with two participants. It's almost like QG doesn't believe in collegiate, incremental improvements and it makes it really hard to WP:AGF... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Time to shut this down

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)

OK, I just collapsed it. QuackGuru's blanking of my comments on her/his talk page show their unwillingness to listen or collaborate, so we should just move on. YoPienso (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent Sanger criticism of Wikipedia

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 see no reason to add it unless its covered by reliable sources. We shouldn’t treat Sanger differently from any other semi-reliable blogger just because he is connected to the project. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC) This is mentioned based on a single Fox News source. A sentence or two seems fine. Anything more than that would need better, secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC) With due respect, i don't think it should be mentioned at all. To rephrase my original point, fox news is not a reliable source, and Larry Sanger is not as significant to the wikipedia project as they want people to think. Which means his comments are nothing more than yet another instance of Fox News pushing post-truth alternative facts, and they want to use Sanger's past connection to wikipedia to legitimize their conspiracy theories about left wing bias. Wikipedia should not contribute to legitimizing them further. If other sources find it his claims notable enough to debunk, or expose whatever ulterior motives he may have had for echoing pro trump talking points, then sure. Let it be covered. Otherwise, it's just not relevant. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC) fox news is not a reliable source "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG," per perennial sources. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Not relevant for inclusion here. News at 10: "Sanger, self-proclaimed libertarian, rails against perceived liberalism. (Also requests more funding)." Remind me, is his latest project in favour of experts, or opposed to them? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I believe Sanger is pro-expert, as long as that expert is himself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Looks like a section was added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ·addshore· talk to me! 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Reinstated, you don't have any consensus to remove (in fact it's pretty clearly in favor of inclusion here), maybe start an RfC if you feel that strongly against it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Removed. There's clearly no such consensus as you claim, and, per policy: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. ——Serial # 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Indeed. When I removed this, there was one person asking should it be included, one person saying yes, and three saying no. Not seeing how you could have arrived at the conclusion that there was clear consensus for inclusion, by the evening of 29 May, MPUWT. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I'm coming to the conclusion there is objectively more support here to include than against, in which case the side against is only you and an IP. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC) To be clear I support linking reliable sources which cover the blog post (obviously where WP:DUE etc etc etc), the topic as presented is whether or not to include the link to Sanger’s subpar blog which I strongly object to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Of course, I think we're all in agreement regarding that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I think you clearly don't know how to count. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) And you don't know how to respond to the right person. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC) We aren’t *all* in agreement but I think there is a general consensus. If we want to talk about changes to the text I would remove all the direct quotes and tighten up our summary a little bit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC) You're welcome to make the improvements you see fit. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:00, 3 June 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. petrarchan47คุก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) I should've been more clear. I don't think it adds anything important to the article, and I don't think it should be include... but I don't think a single sentence is worth removing, either. It absolutely should not be expanded without much better sources, and it would benefit the article for this sentence to be trimmed to avoid becoming a WP:FART-collection. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 11 June 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) Actually, he is right that the "neutral" in NPOV is a perennial source of confusion. But his criticism would be totally obliterated by renaming NPOV to PPOV (i.e. proportional point of view). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Hi Tudor. I partially agree, but only partially. I suspect your point mostly applies to the Due weight part of NPOV, while "neutral" primarily applies to editorial behavior, as explained in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content: "NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions; we write about facts and opinions neutrally. The "Neutral" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". Editors must edit neutrally when they deal with biased content. Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not." Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Why not include it and allow everyone to use their own judgment? https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/ 2600:1700:1580:4290:F0D4:53E:2FD1:FB1D (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) We already have the internet for that. Here we use reliable sources (RS), and Sanger is a fringe and pitiful character who is far from a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Question of Neutrality

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)

Calling someone "biased" is one of the least constructive criticisms possible, since it is equally applicable to everybody and everything and says nothing except "I disagree". And I don't think RationalWiki says Wikipedia is biased. They are pro-science and anti-crackpot, like Wikipedia, but their rules are not as strict. Conservapedia, on the other hand, is anti-science and pro-crackpot.

Independent of that: how is your contribution connected to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"..like Wikipedia,"LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4570:A710:C99E:AFCB:8995:1DF3 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

As the saying goes, the fish doesn't know he's wet. 2601:642:C401:72D0:65BD:84FA:9538:B514 (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

When did he swing totally into the conspiratorial American right?

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) Agreed. Someone pointed me to it yesterday.[7] Doug Weller talk 17:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I also find it quite disturbing the path he has gone down. And based on the fact that he published an article in The Federalist[8] back in December 2016, a conservative website that spreads conspiracy theories, it's likely he has fallen down the ring wing conspiratorial rabbit hole over a longer period of time. Radicalization usually happens gradually, and it looks like this is what we are seeing with Sanger. X-Editor talk 20:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @Doug Weller: Interestingly, there seem to be no reliable sources or really any sources of any kind that seem to have noticed this happening to Sanger. All of the recent coverage is just mentioning him as the co-founder of Wikipedia due to the site's 20th birthday and nothing more. X-Editor talk 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC) Wow, you guys were not kidding. From his blog[9]: Picture this. The scene is Davos, 2019. “So the radicalization of the youth and the commanding heights of the society is complete. So what we do is, first we release a disease in China. We hype it to the skies and shut down society. Meanwhile, we create massive riots in the summer. We reveal that Biden is a horrible criminal, but plot twist…the evidence is hidden systematically by the media. This sends the right over the edge. Then we steal the election from Trump per long-standing practice and ramped-up plans. The evidence is overwhelming but the media denies it all and the useful idiots will, as per usual, buy it all! It’s so great that generations of miseducation made them into morons! Then, with forced vaccination and more long-term civilization-killing lockdowns hanging over people’s heads, with Democrats convinced that Trump is worse than Hitler and Republicans convinced that the country is falling apart (which, ha ha, it sure is), how could the Americans not break up their union? And you know what they themselves say: ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ So then…they fall.” Nah, that’s just crazy talk. I don’t really think that. I’m not a crazy conspiracy theorist. This definitely needs to be added to the article when someone reliable reports on it. Knuthove (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Super crazy conspiracy nonsense, but not a peep about it in the media. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC) @Binksternet: That's the part that shocks me the most. No media coverage whatsoever. You'd think the media would be all over this sort of thing, after all, they've made countless articles documenting all these conspiracy theories and the far-right's influence, but surprisingly no coverage on Sanger's pivot into the far-right. I actually feel really sorry for the guy, he didn't deserve to get sucked down the rabbit hole. I want the old Sanger back. X-Editor talk 02:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC) There's been no news coverage about it because Sanger isn't newsworthy. No one really knows or cares who he is outside of Wikipedia, and apparently now some right-wing conspiracy theorists. If I had to posit a guess, Larry's latest pivot is just another money-making scheme after all of his other post-Wikipedia ventures failed miserably. I'm not sure what "old Sanger" you're nostalgic for but this is par for the course from what I remember of him. He used to literally troll his own Wikipedia article talk page making suggestions for people to edit. Citizendium largely failed because he could not get out the way of editors (because of course he was always the smartest guy in the room). He was a joke then and has apparently become moreso since, but fewer and fewer people care. TempDog123 (talk) 07:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC) @Binksternet: I also think we should notify Jimmy Wales about Sanger's pivot. After all, he did co-found Wikipedia with Sanger. We should also try to look for any early signs of this radicalization happening with Sanger. X-Editor talk 02:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Questioning the narrative is being a conspiracy theorist nowadays... This place is a ridiculous echo-chamber. Noxian16 (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @Noxian16: There's a difference between questioning the narrative vs. sharing conspiracies that are obviously bogus. This is an example of the latter. X-Editor talk 16:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC) "That's the part that shocks me the most. No media coverage whatsoever." That shocks you? I would bet 99 out of 100 people have no idea who Jim Wales is, Larry Sanger is nobody outside of the Talk pages of this website. The New York Times dropping an expose about Nick Jonas claiming he was abducted by a UFO would be news. The New York Times dropping an expose about Larry Sanger claiming he was abducted by a UFO would just be harassment of a retired part-time college instructor. "I also think we should notify Jimmy Wales about Sanger's pivot." Why? Chetsford (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC); self-strike comment per NOTFORUM 15:50, 1 March 2021 (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) Good reminder, thank you! Chetsford (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I know that Epoch Times is considered an unreliable source, but it discusses Sanger's view on Wikipedia: https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_morningbrief/wikipedia-co-founder-warns-wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever_3887650.html Kdammers (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC) I have to agree with Hob Gadling that this discussion is a whole bunch of nothing if it doesn't translate into improving the article, per WP:NOTFORUM, and I say that as someone who agrees with the concern over Sanger's views, and certainly finds it conspicuous that Sanger's criticism sure seems to get signal-boosted (that's how the kids call it nowadays, right?) more when it aligns with narratives related to the American political landscape and conspirative talking points, and less when, say, he claims that Wikipedia defining alternative medicines such as homeopathy as pseudoscience is "not treating the subject truly neutrally".--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021

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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Photograph

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)

Sanger falsely claimed...

...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)

Please clarify. Are you asking whether Sanger made the statement or whether it is false? Johnuniq (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm asking whether Newsweek is qualified to describe his statement as false. I see that Newsweek has "no consensus" status at the perennial reliable sources page. Mostly a technical inquiry for my sake, note I haven't made an edit; just wondering if Newsweek is a good enough source on its own for a qualification like this. SmolBrane (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any RS that contradict that such a statement by anyone is false, IOW that Sanger was right? If not, then Newsweek is making a factual and uncontroversial statement of fact and can be used. Sanger did indeed make a false statement, as he does in many other situations. He's become a fringe caricature, far removed from reality on many important issues. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering how questionable sources are treated when they are sole sources of seemingly conventional observations. SmolBrane (talk) 20:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

They are used on a case-by-case basis, and for uncontroversial statements of fact they are just as good as any other source. If he said that, then it's really a no brainer to say it's false. Any source with an ounce of credibility will recognize that it's an ignorant and ridiculously false statement, and considering some of the other stupid things Sanger believes, it's not surprising. Newsweek is good enough for this usage. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

So, COVID-19 vaccines provide immunity to COVID-19?

If you are going to call Sanger ignorant/stupid and prone to making ridiculously false statements ... then this is what you have to assert. Comfortable denigrating the man on a falsehood? 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not immunity. Protection. Vaccinataed people have a lower risk of infection, lower risk of complications and lower risk of death.

This page is for impoving the article, not for your WP:FORUM contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue that too often gets overlooked isn't WP:RS or WP:V but WP:PROPORTION (and WP:ONUS). Is every tweet that gets mentioned in the news (positively or negatively) appropriate for a biography? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sanger Interviews on YouTube are considered unreliable sources?

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." 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. 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."

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)

You gave no reason why an exception should be made. "It's an interview" is not a reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sanger can't even be represented using his own words? Well done Wikipedia ... you are truly a modern marvel of mis/dis-information! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

We just keep unreliable sources out. Sanger can talk and write all day long on all subjects he likes, but his ideas only become noteworthy for Wikipedia if reliable sources notice them. It's not that difficult to understand, except for people who think that the opinion of a Random Guy on the Street must be heard together with the experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And who decides the list of "reliable sources" but a group of highly experienced WP editors and admins? Would you state that WP is "neutral" and "without bias"? Plenty of research shows that WP is very much left-leaning and biased, see [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].

If WPs main editors and admins are biased, then this curated list of allowed "experts" will be biased. That's it. Am I missing anything?

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:YESBIAS. That Wikipedia is 'biased' is not the problem you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what is missing is a better solution. If you have one, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Pro tip: Sanger's solution is not better, all his encyclopedias failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Phunware

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)

Experts

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)

Hmmm ... if articles were approved by experts then Wikipedia might qualify as a reliable source! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You want articles approved by experts? Cos this is what happens when you have articles approved by experts... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's being taken out of context. As the article mentions, Sanger created another wiki project called Citizendium, which had the goal of having all of its articles approved by experts. However, many of these "experts" turned out to be pseudoscience-pushing cranks with questionable credentials. I think we can safely assume that if he was still actively involved with the project, any articles on election fraud would have to be approved by the World's Leading Experts™ on the subject, Dinesh D'Souza and Mike Lindell. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sanger would consider their POV the right one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life and Religion

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)

An update may be needed depending on what the explicitly stated belief actually says. I don't see any conflict with being agnostic and studying the Bible or expressing an openness to religion. It doesn't say he's an atheist. --Onorem (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Telegram (software). Partofthemachine (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)