Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
David Gerard said: Moreover, I assert that it is my right to raise hell not only on this list, but also on Jimmy Wales' user talk page--if this is really an open, transparent, democratic project devoted to free speech. It isn't the last two of those things. You need to reread What Wikiipedia Is Not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT It certainly has changed since I wrote it. It looks as if you're trying to imply Wikipedia is not devoted to free speech, even in discussions about the community--even in discussions about the roles and public behavior of the most prominent representative of the community. Perhaps you need to rethink what you're trying to say, David. This list is not a free ranting green ink zone. I resent the implication, David, that I am ranting. I am not. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
George and Oskar, you are both making a fallacious argument. Of course Wikipedia, as a reference resource, is not a battleground, a primary source, or a discussion board. But WikiEN-L is, in case you didn't notice it, a discussion board, and it is different from the encyclopedia. It also has a great deal of political influence in the project. It is the closest thing you have to a town square. In that context, my argument is sound and yours completely misses the point. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Fred Bauder wrote: Given Jimmy Wales's reluctance to engage you and the rejection by the community in general of your assertions, it is time to drop those issues with respect to this list. Well, I'm about to bow out. But I did want want to say that you are completely wrong that the Wikipedia community in general has rejected my *assertions*. In fact, my impression is that half or more of the people who have weighed in have said, among other things, I think Larry has a legitimate complaint. I think I'll take this to Foundation-L and see if the Board will have the integrity and balls to make an official statement. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic. I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]]. On the issue of whether I am entitled to speak out here, I did want to make two points. First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it annoying. If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms. Second, virtually all of the arguments of those claiming that I lack the right to air my concerns on this list work as arguments that I should not have been allowed to post in the first place. Surely the moderators were right to allow me to post, and I was grateful to them for letting me do so. Nevertheless, since first posting, all I have been doing is defending the relevance, or significance, of my open letter to Jimmy Wales, or my right to make it--not really discussing its content at all. That's a pretty sad state of affairs, I think. I actually think that a large majority of Wikipedians probably sympathize with my letter, but that they are intimidated by those on this list who have the ability to make up arguments justifying censorship of someone with a serious, well-justified complaint about one of the most important leaders of the project. As to the attacks on Citizendium, I'm not going to bother replying. Those who are inclined to be sympathetic toward us will find out about us from more reliable sources, or from their own observation. Suffice it to say that the people who are lobbing the most vicious attacks either know nothing about the project, or are deeply philosophically opposed to it, and in either case, their opinion is not worth very much, as far as I'm concerned. As to those who might be inclined to sympathize with us, but who are intimidated into silence here on this list, and by mobs in general, let's just say that you're very welcome to join us. I do want to say one last thing to the more reasonable people in the community, who I know have been following this, and who stick things out in the face of what looks like a brainless mob: while I long ago decided I couldn't join you, I do admire and sympathize with your situation. Wikipedia is great--it's hard to abandon. There are a lot of very smart and decent people on Wikipedia, and if I have harsh words about the Wikipedia community from time to time, I hope you'll understand I'm not talking about you. --Larry (I'll be unsubscribing right after sending this) P.S. Apropos of nothing but a throwaway remark by someone on the list: I have never, ever, not even once, used any account on Wikipedia (or Citizendium) other than User:Larry Sanger. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
All, Earlier today, I had no joy in trying to post this open letter to Jimmy Wales on Jimmy's own user talk page: the man himself deleted it. That is not the sort of behavior I would have expected of the head of an allegedly open, transparent community devoted to free speech. I would like Wikipedians in general to be apprised of my concerns. I believe they are serious and well-justified, and they should not be dismissed without a careful hearing. I do not ask that Jimmy Wales reply here on this list. But I do ask that the powers that be--including the Wikipedia community, the Wikimedia Board, and the media--hold Jimmy responsible for his very shabby behavior toward me. Let me be clear. This is not just an attempt to tell my side of the story. It is me confronting Jimmy Wales publicly for lying about my involvement in the project after many private requests to stop. You might disagree with me about many things, but we need not disagree about the facts as they can be found in various Internet archives, nor about the necessity of keeping our leaders honest. A readable copy, with some updates, can be found here: http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/an-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-copy/ http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/04/08/updates-re-open-letter-to-jimmy-wales / The letter itself follows. --Larry Sanger === Jimmy, I don't know a better place than this for an open letter to you [i.e., than on your user talk page on Wikipedia]. I recently read the Hot Press interview with you. The lies and distortions it contains are, for me, the last straw, especially after http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/xodp/message/1720 this came to light, in which you described yourself as co-founder in 2002. I've reached out to you on a couple of occasions to coordinate our versions - well, my version and your fanciful inventions - about how Wikipedia got started. Last year I read about a speech in which you represented me as being more or less opposed to Wikipedia from the start - despite it being my own baby, really - and I wrote to you saying that if you keep this up, I will speak out. Well, I'm finally speaking out. In Wikipedia's first three years, it was clear to everyone working on it that not only had I named the project, I came up with and promoted the idea of making a wiki encyclopedia, wrote the first policy pages and many more policy pages in the following year, led the project, and enforced many rules that are now taken for granted. I came up with a lot of stuff that is regarded as standard operating procedure. For instance, I argued that talk should go on talk pages and got people into that habit. Similarly, after meta-discussion started taking up so much of Wikipedia's time and energy, I shepherded talk about the project to meta.wikipedia.org - and after that, to Wikipedia-L and WikiEN-L. I insisted that we were working on an encyclopedia, not on the many other things one can use a wiki for. I came up with the name Wikipedian and other Wikipedia jargon. I had devised a neutrality policy for Nupedia, and I elaborated it in a form that stood for several years on Wikipedia. I did a lot of explaining and evangelizing for Wikipedia - what it is about, why we are here, and so forth - for example, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Our_Replies_to_Our_Critics%22 Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on kuro5hin.org http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 like this one and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 this. I also recall introducing many specific policy details, the evidence for which is in archives (such as on archive.org) and no doubt in the memories of some of the more active early Wikipedians. These are only some examples of ways in which I led the project in its first 14 months; after I left, there was a lot of soul-searching in the project about what would happen now that it was leaderless (see the quotations linked from http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html this page). When I was involved in the project, I was regarded as its chief organizer. As you can still see in the archives, I called myself Chief Instigator and Chief Organizer and the like (not editor). I also want to correct you on something that tends to harm me: your repeated insinuations that I was fired. In the Hot Press interview, you said I left Wikipedia because you didn't want to pay him any more. You know - and so does everyone else who worked at Bomis, Inc., around a dozen people - that at the end of 2001, you had to go back to Bomis' original 4-5 employees, because of the tech market bust, when Bomis suddenly lost a million-dollar ad deal. Tim Shell told me I was the last person to be laid off. He told me - the day I arrived back from my honeymoon, as I recall - that I should probably start looking for new work, because of the market. I was made to believe, and always did until a few years ago when you started implying otherwise, that I had been
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
First, let me thank the moderators for approving my letter. Replies to two different people here. Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: ... it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more discernment. I disagree. As I said in the letter itself, there is not a better place for this message than Jimmy Wales' user talk page. This is because I am deliberately confronting him. If I can't confront a person on the talk page for the leader (at least by reputation) of the project, where can I? User talk pages in current practice are not for blogging or personal communication I think you may not understand what an open letter is. Why don't you look it up on Wikipedia? An open letter cannot be dismissed as either a blogs or a personal communication. User talk should be squarely about improving the encyclopaedia. This *is* about improving the encyclopedia--by improving its leadership, the way that the media reports about it, and what Wikipedians themselves know about it. You may not have taken the trouble to acquaint yourself with the methods by which legitimate feedback and comment on wikimedian matters is currently channeled, but it would very much be worth your while, to facilitate a smoother communicative experience. This illustrates a sort of silly, condescending manner of speaking among Wikipedians that really ought to stop. Enough said. Tris Thomas wrote: Can this just not stop? Stop? But I am not continuing something, I am starting something. I have never confronted Jimmy Wales publicly in this way for his lies, and described them as lies, ever before. I am absolutely insisting, once and for all, that the record be corrected and that Jimmy Wales be held to account for his appalling and self-serving behavior toward me. The way to stop it is for Jimmy Wales to be shamed into ceasing his misrepresentations of Wikipedia's early history--or else for him to earn a wide public reputation as a completely unreliable source about it. Either way will suit me fine. Until then, I will continue to confront and shame him with archived evidence of his mendacity. I would hope that those with an interest in sound leadership and honesty would appreciate and support my efforts. Everyone knows that you once described each other as co-founders therefore, if that's what Jimmy described you as back then, that's what you are. I'm glad you're convinced. Then let's ask the Wikimedia Foundation to reaffirm what it said about me in its very first press release. Anyway, this isn't just about the label co-founder, as you'll see if you read the letter. Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened it makes absolutely no difference now. What I see as childish is the unnecessary tip-toeing around Jimmy Wales, and people supporting and making excuses for what *really is* just self-serving dishonesty. Please just get over it, it's damaging Wikipedia itself, which I don't think Larry wants to do, just seems so pointless. It is not pointless to get the record corrected and to hold our leaders to high standards of honesty. This may require courage, but it is essential to having a truly open, transparent community that has any chance of deserving the label democratic. In the end, assuming the Wikipedia community and Board reacts to this in a mature, decent manner, it could come out of this stronger and better. On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Another set of replies. I wrote: ... On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't happening, or dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper into the hole you're already in. Remember: the world is watching. Sam Korn replied: What hole are we in, pray? The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the court of public opinion to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this. That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it. For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy. Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you. Bill Carter wrote: Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative. Bill, I appreciate the compliment! But it is my intention to begin--soon--to seek a successor. It is deeply important that the torch be passed in truly open, democratic projects. I have other projects in the works to start, anyway. Charles Matthews wrote: One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally to choose between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would prefer a third-party, dispassionate account. I am not asking you to choose versions of history, I am asking you to acknowledge that Jimmy Wales has self-servingly denied, distorted, or ignored provable facts that ought to be acknowledged on *anybody's* version of history. Tris Thomas wrote: ... but I really don't see the need to continue this issue. There is no tiptoeing around Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm sure he's reading it) in Wikipedia articles. There is a general consensus that on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable almost everyone agrees, so why the continuation? If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right is the sole only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we just end this pointless, yes pointless, feud. This is not a feud, Tris. This is me publicly confronting a liar with evidence. A feud would be more of a matter of competing claims with no way of sorting them out. There *is* a way to sort the claims I dispute out: by looking in the archives and interviewing people. Moreover, and I'm not sure how many times I am going to have to say this, it isn't just about the matter of being a co-founder and me getting credit. If you read the letter, you'll see why I say so. While I do of course want proper credit for my achievements, what I want even more is to correct the record in general, and to dissuade Jimmy Wales from being so fast and loose with the truth, as I said. I am now convinced this requires a public confrontation, because the low-level and private remarks I have made in response to him over the last five years or so obviously haven't worked. It will only stop when Jimmy Wales changes his tune, or he is so discredited in public that no one listens to him on the subject any longer. Sam Korn said: Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it. geni said: It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia. True, but it's more than that, you know. The problem isn't just inconvenience to the community. In an encyclopedia project, the inherent value of the truth itself ought to be accorded a lot of weight. In addition, you have Wikipedia's reputation in the broader world to think about. The sort of person who is permitted to speak on its behalf, and who still enjoys a lot of credence in claiming sole credit for starting it, says a lot about
Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
Two more replies... Charles Matthews wrote: Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil. Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely flaming Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained. I wrote: Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands. Fred Bauder replied: A problem you are trying to stir up. A problem I am exacerbating--quite right. Do you have a problem with that? As far as Wikipedia [being] an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, that is an artifact of your own wishful thinking. Well, if that's really what you want to think, Fred, I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince you otherwise. Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling. As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent. Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy Wales, but that ought to be the end of it. If Jimmy Wales were to apologize, he would have to admit that he had done something wrong., and for me to believe an apology, I should have to see him correct the record and say he was wrong. What are the chances of that happening? I think I know Jimmy well enough to know he will never do that. --Larry ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
