[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Larry Sanger]

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
 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  
Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on
kuro5hin.org   like this
one and   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   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 imply

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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 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. 
Putting aside for the moment, the rest of your missive of quite
respectable length; if you do deserve kudos for creating the
very first heuristics for channeling discussion to appropriate
fora, it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose
the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more
discernment.

User talk pages in current practice are not for blogging or
personal communication (except to the extent that such
personal communication is in the aid of cementing the trust
and fellow feeling contributors have with each other, and
thus helps our work as a community). User talk should be
squarely about improving the encyclopaedia.

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.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
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

[Tris Thomas]

Can this just not stop?  From what I can see, Larry worked for Jimmy at 
Bomis.  Together they worked on Wikipedia, but with Larry coming up with 
the idea & being the main driving force behind it to start with.  But he 
was an employee of Bomis.  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.  He could just as easily have described 
you as an employee of the finder & would be entitled to as you were the 
employee & he can take the credit.

Why the continuous childish bickering-everyone knows what happened & it 
makes absolutely no difference now.

Please just get over it, it's damaging Wikipedia itself, which I don't 
think Larry wants to do, & just seems so pointless.

That's my ten cents!

On 09/04/2009 16:21, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Larry Sanger wrote:
>
>> 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 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.
>>  
> Putting aside for the moment, the rest of your missive of quite
> respectable length; if you do deserve kudos for creating the
> very first heuristics for channeling discussion to appropriate
> fora, it is sadly regrettable that you were not able to choose
> the initial forum where you published your diatribe with more
> discernment.
>
> User talk pages in current practice are not for blogging or
> personal communication (except to the extent that such
> personal communication is in the aid of cementing the trust
> and fellow feeling contributors have with each other, and
> thus helps our work as a community). User talk should be
> squarely about improving the encyclopaedia.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> ___
> 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 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

[Larry Sanger]

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

[purple . clouder]

On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger  wrote:
> > 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.


For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is  
now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily  
complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed  
to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but  
you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry.

Enough said.

~O
___
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

[Sam Korn]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger
 wrote:
> 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.

What hole are we in, pray?

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.  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.

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
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

[Bill Carter]

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



From: "purple.clou...@gmail.com" 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:24:38 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

On Apr 9, 2009 9:11am, Larry Sanger  wrote:
> > 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.


For once, I agree with Mr. Sanger. Unfortunately, the Wikipedian culture is  
now fossilized into strange patterns that are strange, unnecessarily  
complex, difficult to learn, and don't quite work the way they're supposed  
to anymore. I know you say you wish you'd done more in the beginning, but  
you can't and we have too much of a barrier to entry.

Enough said.

~O
___
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 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

[Charles Matthews]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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."
>   
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.  So much for history.  If 
you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia 
community, go ahead.  This comment is so obviously policised and 
personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the 
"foundation myth".

Charles


___
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

[Tris Thomas]

Agree with Sam, I'm not supporting Jimmy because it's clear in calling 
himself the sole founder he is wrong & shouldn't do it, 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.

Just my view! :,)

On 09/04/2009 17:33, Sam Korn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Larry Sanger
>   wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>  
>
> What hole are we in, pray?
>
> 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.  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.
>
>
___
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

[geni]

2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
> What hole are we in, pray?
>
> 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.  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.
>
> --
> Sam
> PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>



-- 
geni

___
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

[geni]

2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia
> community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.

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.


-- 
geni

___
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

[Sam Korn]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, geni  wrote:
> 2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
>> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia
>> community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.
>
> 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.

"Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger
co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that,
although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and
his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered
the founder."

Or something like that.

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
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]

> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:15 PM, geni  wrote:
>> 2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
>>> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia
>>> community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.
>>
>> 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.
>
> "Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger
> co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying that,
> although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia and
> his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be considered
> the founder."
>
> Or something like that.
>
> --
> Sam

Yes, that is an appropriate description of the situation.

Fred


___
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

[Fayssal F.]

I may agree with that but I am still waiting for mainstream media talking
about it and Larry's claims in the open before thinking about editing that
page.

Fayssal F.


> Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 18:15:16 +0100
> From: geni 
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
> > Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia
> > community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 69, Issue 22
> 
>
___
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

[doc]

geni wrote:
> 2009/4/9 Sam Korn :
>> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia
>> community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 


In summation: Larry says Jimmy is a self-serving liar, and presents 
(IMO) compelling evidence of the same.


The question then is:
1) Does Wikipedia/WMF care? and
2) Should Wikipedia/WMF care?

Well, perhaps not:

*unless its articles reflect something other than reality. (We are 
committed to NPOV)

*or unless Jimmy were abusing his position within WMF and the community 
to push his POV, or distort Wikipedia for his own benefit. (If the 
leader/exemplar were engaging in POV-pushing and COI meet puppetry, that 
should concern us!)

Is he?

I don't know.

Are these IRC transcripts accurate? The source is questionable, but as a 
minor participant in one of the discussions, it does seem to tally with 
my (admittedly fuzzy) memories.


http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Found_Out


___
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

[Larry Sanger]

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 clai

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Charles Matthews]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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.
>   
Distinction without a difference?

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


___
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]

> 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.

A problem you are trying to stir up. As far as "Wikipedia [being] an
endless source of scandal and dishonesty", that is an artifact of your
own wishful thinking. As the promoter of a competing project your
interest is transparent. I do think an apology is due you from Jimmy
Wales, but that ought to be the end of it.

Fred Bauder


___
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

[Larry Sanger]

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Tris Thomas]

This statement is totally incorrect:

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.


I am pretty new to Wikipedia editing but have obviously used it for a 
long time before.  Wikipedia has some reliability issues which is why 
it's discouraged in schools etc. but it definitely does not have a 
reputation for dishonesty & indecency.  I am no Wikipedia die hard fan, 
but I enjoy using it & it has proved an invaluable resource many many 
times.  In the wider public, it is viewed as a respectable & accurate 
encyclopedia, with some issues directly related to the fact that anyone 
can edit it.
Mr Sanger-I feel I am very neutral in this debate, having no real 
opinion, I also don't really care who "wins", because that's what it is 
all about.  I just think this is a stupid thing to keep going on at, all 
replies so far have agreed with you that Jimmy did wrong & should 
probably apologise or set the record straight.  Your constant gibes at 
Wikipedia serve no purpose except to turn many neutral editors who are 
here & would probably be happy to help get a NPOV, against you.
Please stop this pointless, yes I'll say it again, pointless, business 
for the good of everyone.

Phew, let that off, apologise if I offended anyone, just want to stop 
this rubbish.


On 09/04/2009 19:57, Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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.
>

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/9 Tris Thomas :

> Phew, let that off, apologise if I offended anyone, just want to stop
> this rubbish.


I predict it won't stop it for a moment. Mike Johnson of CZ has noted
before that criticising Wikipedia is the quickest way to publicity for
Citizendium:

http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2007/05/modern-dragons-now-with-20-more-umlauts.html

As I commented on that post, it's not clear that's good for
Citizendium in the long run. Entirely too many Citizendium
contributors appear to be in it to be against Wikipedia, rather than
e.g. to write an encyclopedia.


- d.

___
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

[Charles Matthews]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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.
>   
Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of 
forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not 
unfamiliar to me.  Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, 
you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something 
in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to 
approach debates in other ways.

>>Fred Bauder replied:

>   
>> As the promoter of 
>> a competing project your interest is transparent.
>> 
>
> Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply.
>   
I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't.

Yes, the bit where you write: "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." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are 
inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, 
that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You 
don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in 
your own case.  You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey 
presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's 
in the pillory.

Cutting to the chase, it seems perfectly easy to say "a pox on both your 
houses" in the dispute on the "founder" badge; and yet to defend 
Wikipedia.  In fact it's been a good few days, with positive write-ups 
in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the London 
Observer.  Noam Cohen in the NYT mentions "there is a professional class 
of Wikipedia skeptics". If you haven't already, you should see the 
context there.

Charles


___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/9 David Gerard :

> I predict it won't stop it for a moment. Mike Johnson of CZ has noted
> before that criticising Wikipedia is the quickest way to publicity for
> Citizendium:
> http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2007/05/modern-dragons-now-with-20-more-umlauts.html
> As I commented on that post, it's not clear that's good for
> Citizendium in the long run. Entirely too many Citizendium
> contributors appear to be in it to be against Wikipedia, rather than
> e.g. to write an encyclopedia.


Further note from Tara Hunt: "How not to build a community: Part I:
the anti-community "

http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html

"The first mistake I ever made in community fostering is to position
the company I worked for in opposition to another one (can't find that
post, but I was an idiot). So let me offer this unsolicited advice:
Rule #1 in building your own reputation is to never ever ever build it
on the grounds that it is different/better/etc. than an established
company"

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
- the successful forks don't spend their time railing against the
other tine of the fork ... they get on with being good of their own
account.


- d.

___
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

[Charles Matthews]

David Gerard wrote:
>  Mike Johnson of CZ has noted
> before that criticising Wikipedia is the quickest way to publicity for
> Citizendium:
>
> http://moderndragons.blogspot.com/2007/05/modern-dragons-now-with-20-more-umlauts.html
>   
Fighting red ink with green?

Charles


___
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

[phoebe ayers]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
> Larry Sanger wrote:
>> 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."
>>
> 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.  So much for history.  If
> you also want to advocate for something else, relative to the Wikipedia
> community, go ahead.  This comment is so obviously policised and
> personalised, that I'd prefer to keep a clear wall between it and the
> "foundation myth".
>
> Charles

I agree totally with Charles, here. When "How Wikipedia Works" goes
into its 23rd printing :) hopefully we will be able to rely on other
people's dispassionate sifting of the historical record (what there is
of it; much of what is disputed is over what was said in personal
conversations, though seemingly not much public effort has been made
so far to find out what the other parties in those conversations
think). Larry and Jimmy are not the only early Wikipedians, and
someday hopefully there will be a better detailed history of the whole
endeavor in the black-hole, missing-edit-history years. (I can see
this being printed by one of those obscure university presses, on
thick paper with extensive footnotes...) In the meantime, of course,
the public will continue to learn about the project through the news
and their own searches, as they always have, and the rest of us will
go about our business.

The Wikipedia story is not exciting because of any single person's
contributions to the projects; it's the aggregate over time that
matters, and outside of the larger context of the project, none of our
contributions (no matter how much, or how little) are worth much.
(Founding doesn't mean much if other people don't run with it; and
contributing to a wiki doesn't get you very far if others don't also
build the web). But this is not a negative aspect -- as Andrew Lih
said at the end of "The Wikipedia Revolution," we are _all_ lucky to
have been a part of such a revolutionary project, and we should all
take personal pride in that.

-- phoebe

___
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

[Charles Matthews]

phoebe ayers wrote:
> The Wikipedia story is not exciting because of any single person's
> contributions to the projects; it's the aggregate over time that
> matters, and outside of the larger context of the project, none of our
> contributions (no matter how much, or how little) are worth much.
> (Founding doesn't mean much if other people don't run with it; and
> contributing to a wiki doesn't get you very far if others don't also
> build the web).
I think the interesting point here is something like "when but more 
particularly how does the [[founder effect]] wear off?"  Microsoft is 
now post-Gates, in one sense.  The WMF is obviously post the "Wales and 
Sanger show", in another.  Arguably wikis can evolve rather faster than 
corporations (but certainly they don't always).  Wikipedia has been 
particularly dynamic in an evolutionary sense, but on the other hand 
there have been people heard to say that it is now hard to change it (I 
did, last year ...).  Maybe we're more like a "swarm of gnats" 
(http://www.keithhilen.com/Java/Gnats/Gnats.html).

Anyway, that's flesh on the bones of my earlier argument: the history 
isn't bunk, but the place became sufficiently complicated at least five 
years ago for the echoes of the early day to have become distinctly muffled.

Charles


___
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

[geni]

2009/4/9 doc :
> Are these IRC transcripts accurate? The source is questionable, but as a
> minor participant in one of the discussions, it does seem to tally with
> my (admittedly fuzzy) memories.
>
>
> http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Jimbo_Fired_Up

The first one is.



-- 
geni

___
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

[Brian]

Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective
look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> 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
>  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  
> Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on
> kuro5hin.org   like
> this
> one and   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   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 em

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Brian]

But you know there can only be one benevolent dictator, right?

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Brian  wrote:

> Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an
> objective look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger  > wrote:
>
>> 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
>>  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  > >
>> Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on
>> kuro5hin.org   like
>> this
>> one and   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   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

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Anthony]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Larry Sanger
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?
>

Soapboxes are pretty cheap these days.

> 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.
>

Moreover, I don't think everyone does know what happened during those early
years.  I've read contradictory statements about it, and have concluded that
neither you nor Wales are being 100% truthful.
___
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

[Carcharoth]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Charles Matthews
 wrote:



> I think the interesting point here is something like "when but more
> particularly how does the [[founder effect]] wear off?"

Minor point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder%27s_syndrome

You clearly meant the latter, but both articles are fascinating.

Carcharoth

___
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

[geni]

2009/4/9 Larry Sanger :
> The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty,

Nah. Sure journalists have worked out that an attack on wikipedia will
get them some viewer ship but these days the attacks tend towards
outdated recycled stuff or "I don't like it". Fresh scandals not so
much.

> 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.

We have many many problems. From the POV of the community Jimbo's
actions with regards to the founder issue probably ranks somewhere
below the fight over the "Country X country Y relations" articles.

> 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.

What does this have to do with the foundation or the community?

> 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.

Jimbo is not the leader (sue might have a better claim to that but
hard to tell) and I think chief spokesbeing is probably jay.





-- 
geni

___
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

[Sam Korn]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Charles Matthews
 wrote:
> Larry Sanger wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of
> forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not
> unfamiliar to me.  Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes,
> you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something
> in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to
> approach debates in other ways.
>
>>>Fred Bauder replied:
>
>>
>>> As the promoter of
>>> a competing project your interest is transparent.
>>>
>>
>> Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply.
>>
> I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't.
>
> Yes, the bit where you write: "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." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are
> inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems,
> that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You
> don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in
> your own case.  You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey
> presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's
> in the pillory.

To quote Mr Sanger, "Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales."

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger
 wrote:
> 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.

Endless source of scandal and dishonesty?  The reputation of
Wikipedia?  The project's leading light?

I credit none of the three.

>> 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.

So it's personal.  There's nothing wrong with that at all; from a
certain point of view, I don't blame you.  On the other hand, I'm not
interested in getting involved.

>> 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.

I do not consider Jimmy Wikipedia's leader or its chief spokesman.
Perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the project is
community-led, community-driven, community-focussed; I don't know.  I
am not interested, no, in this personal and now-irrelevant dispute.

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
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

[Ken Arromdee]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Sam Korn wrote:
> 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.  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.

If he is telling the truth it seems like a perfectly legitimate request.
Wikipedia obviously cares about the issue enough to have Wikipedia articles
covering the subject and put out press releases mentioning it.  If so, then
Wikipedia should care enough to get those correct.

In other words, if you care enough to get it wrong, you should be expected
to care enough to get it right.


___
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

[Phil Nash]

Larry Sanger wrote:
>> 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.

Free speech? That's a novel idea. We frequently tell recalcitrant editors 
that the First Amendment does not apply on Wikipedia,
and many of our policies, e.g. [[WP:SOAPBOX]], [[WP:TRUTH]], [[WP:NOR]] are 
inimical to free speech. However, this is beginning to bore the hell out of 
me as being not far off Jorge Luis' Borges description of the [[Falkands 
War]]. I suspect I'm not alone. Whinge as much as you like on your own blog, 
go to the media if you like, but I am dangerously close to issuing several 
entirely policy-related blocks. Permanent ones. PS Please wish me a Happy 
Birthday.





___
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

[WJhonson]

 
In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,  
smo...@gmail.com writes:

"Sanger  and most media sources consider Wales and  Sanger
co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying  that,
although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia  and
his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be  considered
the founder.">>


-
 
Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy  
whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder.
 
Will Johnson
 
 
**Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
___
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

[James Farrar]

2009/4/9 Larry Sanger 

> 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?

Yes. You can't complain that something is a problem when you are the
one who is causing it.

Basically, shut up and go and cry in a corner.

___
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

[James Farrar]

That would be a matter for Foundation-l then, not wikien-l.

2009/4/9 Brian :
> Honestly, it's important enough that the Foundation should take an objective
> look at the facts and make a statement about Wikipedia's history.
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Larry Sanger
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>  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  
>> Wikipedia:Our Replies to Our Critics and a couple of well-known posts on
>> kuro5hin.org   like
>> this
>> one and   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   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

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Fred Bauder]

>
> In a message dated 4/9/2009 10:21:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> smo...@gmail.com writes:
>
> "Sanger  and most media sources consider Wales and  Sanger
> co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying  that,
> although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of Wikipedia  and
> his role is regularly underestimated, Wales alone should be  considered
> the founder.">>
>
>
> -
>
> Currently the Wikipedia article doesn't seem to mention this controversy
> whatsoever, and consistently calls Sanger co-founder.
>
> Will Johnson

That is good enough. Original research by Jimmy Wales is no better than
anyone elses.

Fred


___
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

[FT2]

The article [[History of Wikipedia]] has the /encyclopedic/ content on this,
which has been broadly stable since 2007 (revision as at today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipedia&oldid=282677650#Early_roles_of_Wales_and_Sanger).



While drawing attention to a page is a renowned and effective way to
guarantee disruption on that topic, that is how /Wikipedia/ presently
represents the history. Anyone can edit it, if it is not encyclopedically
written.



How you personally, or Jimmy personally, represent it /off wiki/, is your
own off-wiki real world disagreement, and not a matter of editorial
interest. It reflects on the two of you, but that's a personal view and
unencyclopedic OR.



More to the point:



On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> > 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.



> (Snip) 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.


I don't agree with your characterization of the encyclopedia as being
universally held, nor even that this would be the widest held view out
there, sorry. I see gradual traction from the "real world" endorsing, not
rejecting it, if a trend must be found.

Your determination to "hold" anyone to anything (account or otherwise) is of
course a matter for yourself and those involved; it's not salient to
Wikipedia editing. Since Jimmy doesn't edit the pages much if at all these
days, and  the Foundation is independent of editorship (as you surely
realize), none of this is relevant to encyclopedia writing. It's all
politics and desires for perceptions and personal matters, to put it
crudely. You say the encyclopedia's credibility and your reputation are at
stake, but the encyclopedia entry is fairly well written and the
reputational issue that is so important to you, is a "real world" dispute
that most editors who write the content have no stake in at all.

Answering your point to Sam Korn: Could I live with being a member of an
encyclopedia whose two founders have both at some point acted poorly or said
things that were ill considered, or sought personal reputation and
aggrandisement? Yes -- because /none/ of that is going to matter a damn when
someone looks up the Carbon atom, or Hamlet, or even the entry of the
history of Wikipedia itself.

I'm not engaged by you or Jimbo, I'm a volunteer writer on a project to
produce an encyclopedia. Take the dispute and so long as the encyclopedic
pages' content is reasonably well written, put the dispute somewhere else
and I promise to ignore it completely.

My personal view on who needs to change their stance in this, and who has
not acted to the highest standard (one or both of you) is formed, but would
not help the projects /encyclopedic content/.


FT2
___
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

[FT2]

Political correction:
>
>
>  Delete "whose two founders" and replace by "whose two best known early
trailblazers". I would not wish any stance to be read into my word choice
there.
___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/9 David Gerard :

> Further note from Tara Hunt: "How not to build a community: Part I:
> the anti-community "
> http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html


David Shankbone comments:

http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/04/09/larry-sanger-vs-jimmy-wales/

"Perhaps the explanation as to why Sanger is now making so much noise
about this again is that Citizendium is not doing so great.  Nobody
reads it and nobody cares about it.  Most people do not know it
exists."

Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
I'm sure it'll be beautiful.


- d.

___
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

[Jon]

David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/4/9 David Gerard :
>
>   
>> Further note from Tara Hunt: "How not to build a community: Part I:
>> the anti-community "
>> http://www.horsepigcow.com/2006/06/how-not-to-build-community-part-i-anti.html
>> 
>
>
> David Shankbone comments:
>
> http://blog.shankbone.org/2009/04/09/larry-sanger-vs-jimmy-wales/
>
> "Perhaps the explanation as to why Sanger is now making so much noise
> about this again is that Citizendium is not doing so great.  Nobody
> reads it and nobody cares about it.  Most people do not know it
> exists."
>
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
> I'm sure it'll be beautiful.
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>   
I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
thread.  What is citizendium?  Is there a linky?

Best,

Jon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/10 Jon :

> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
> thread.  What is citizendium?  Is there a linky?


http://citizendium.org/

It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
that isn't Wikipedia.


- d.

___
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

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/4/10 Jon :
>
>> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
>> thread.  What is citizendium?  Is there a linky?
>
>
> http://citizendium.org/
>
> It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
> that isn't Wikipedia.

We also have an article on it, as well as one on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia


Citizendium have an article on Wikipedia and also one on Citizendium:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Wikipedia
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium

It's quite interesting reading those four articles and comparing them.

Carcharoth

___
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

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 4/10/2009 9:25:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
dger...@gmail.com writes:


> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).
> I'm sure it'll be beautiful.>>

---

Do you mean he voluntarily gutted it?  Or do you mean he was compelled by 
higher-ups to gut it?  Is there an archived pre-gut version?

Will




**
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store?  Make dinner for $10 or 
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood0001)
___
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

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Ken Arromdee  wrote:
> If he is telling the truth it seems like a perfectly legitimate request.
> Wikipedia obviously cares about the issue enough to have Wikipedia articles
> covering the subject and put out press releases mentioning it.  If so, then
> Wikipedia should care enough to get those correct.

This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just
want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry:

Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You
have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is
getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right
in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and
many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do
either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding.

We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time
you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be
changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It
needs to end.

So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it
the hell up!

Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original
Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the
early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically
denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not
least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of
its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I
suggest you stick to improving that.

Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself,
Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of
interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to
you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better
than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the
process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell
away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight
to realize that you're not neutral on the issue.

So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away
from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
need it.

Rant over.

--Oskar

___
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

[doc]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just
> want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry:
> 
> Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
> happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You
> have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is
> getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right
> in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and
> many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do
> either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding.
> 
> We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time
> you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be
> changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It
> needs to end.
> 
> So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it
> the hell up!
> 
> Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original
> Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the
> early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically
> denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not
> least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of
> its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I
> suggest you stick to improving that.
> 
> Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself,
> Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of
> interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to
> you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better
> than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the
> process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell
> away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight
> to realize that you're not neutral on the issue.
> 
> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away
> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
> need it.
> 
> Rant over.
> 
> --Oskar
> 
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Thank you!

That's about the most balanced analysis I've read yet. Far better than 
most of the pledges of allegiance to Jimmy, or the "two minute hate" 
response to Larry, that we've had on this list.

As long as neutral people write the relevant articles, most of us can 
either stop caring, or draw our own conclusions on who (if anyone) is 
deluded, self-deluded, spinning, lying or otherwise manipulating history.

Me, I'll go back to adopting the mantra of a wise man: "Decline to 
participate, sorry"


___
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

[Sam Korn]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:37 PM, doc  wrote:
> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>> This controversy has been going on for a long while now, and I just
>> want to say something to both Jimmy and Larry:
>>
>> Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
>> happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You
>> have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is
>> getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right
>> in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and
>> many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do
>> either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding.
>>
>> We don't need it. This is an issue between *you two*, and every time
>> you start one of your diatribes or Jimmy asks for articles to be
>> changed, it puts us, the community, in an impossible situation. It
>> needs to end.
>>
>> So, on behalf of those who actually write wikipedia, I say: suck it
>> the hell up!
>>
>> Larry, Jimmy readily admits that you where the original
>> Editor-in-Chief of wikipedia, and with helping to form some of the
>> early core policies. Isn't that enough? You've already basically
>> denounced wikipedia in as many ways and places you can think of (not
>> least this thread), why would you even want to be considered one of
>> its chief architects? You've got a whole project to yourself, I
>> suggest you stick to improving that.
>>
>> Jimmy, stop getting involved in the articles that concern yourself,
>> Larry and the history of wikipedia. It's an impossible conflict of
>> interest, not only for you, but for the wikipedians that are loyal to
>> you (who, again, are put in an impossible situation). You know better
>> than anyone that the wikipedia process works beautifully. Trust the
>> process that works for the rest of the encyclopedia, and stay the hell
>> away and let the editors sort it out. I think you have enough insight
>> to realize that you're not neutral on the issue.
>>
>> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash it out away
>> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
>> need it.
>>
>> Rant over.
>>
>> --Oskar
>>
>> ___
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> Thank you!
>
> That's about the most balanced analysis I've read yet. Far better than
> most of the pledges of allegiance to Jimmy, or the "two minute hate"
> response to Larry, that we've had on this list.
>
> As long as neutral people write the relevant articles, most of us can
> either stop caring, or draw our own conclusions on who (if anyone) is
> deluded, self-deluded, spinning, lying or otherwise manipulating history.
>
> Me, I'll go back to adopting the mantra of a wise man: "Decline to
> participate, sorry"

Hear, hear (to both of you)!

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
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

[Larry Sanger]

I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24
hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.

Various people said:
> >> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash 
> it out away 
> >> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't 
> >> need it.
> >>
> >> Rant over.
> > Thank you!
> Hear, hear (to both of you)!

You are misunderstanding what's going on here.  Jimmy Wales has been lying
about me and my role in this project.  This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM, and I
frankly resent your implicit dismissal of my concerns.

This isn't "just more of the same"; I am *not* asking for the community's
resolution on the issue of "who is founder."  That really *would* be inane,
but it isn't what I am doing.  You would know this, by the way, if you had
actually read my open letter to Jimmy Wales.

I am speaking out first time, publicly, by saying that Jimmy Wales has been
lying about me in a way that is self-serving.  If you don't care about that,
that's your prerogative.  You don't need to announce to the world that you
don't care.  There *are* a lot of people who *do* care.  I'm speaking to
*those* people.

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.  If he wants to take
responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to represent
himself that way to the world, and in other respects speak on behalf of the
project--which he does, whether you like it or not--then he ought to be held
to a higher standard than most.

If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
to get it out there.

--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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/10 Larry Sanger :

> 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

This list is not a free ranting green ink zone. It's a working list
for the project itself. In practice it's stuff of interest to those
working on the project; those people here have pretty clearly said
"thanks Larry, we get your point, it's still irrelevant."


> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
> to get it out there.


You've gotten it to here. Thanks, message received.


- d.

___
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 Herbert]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the last 24
> hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.
>
> Various people said:
> > >> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash
> > it out away
> > >> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
> > >> need it.
> > >>
> > >> Rant over.
> > > Thank you!
> > Hear, hear (to both of you)!
>
> You are misunderstanding what's going on here.  Jimmy Wales has been lying
> about me and my role in this project.  This is a SERIOUS PROBLEM, and I
> frankly resent your implicit dismissal of my concerns.
>
> This isn't "just more of the same"; I am *not* asking for the community's
> resolution on the issue of "who is founder."  That really *would* be inane,
> but it isn't what I am doing.  You would know this, by the way, if you had
> actually read my open letter to Jimmy Wales.
>
> I am speaking out first time, publicly, by saying that Jimmy Wales has been
> lying about me in a way that is self-serving.


This is far from the first time that you've spoken about it publicly, Larry.


>  If you don't care about that,
> that's your prerogative.  You don't need to announce to the world that you
> don't care.  There *are* a lot of people who *do* care.  I'm speaking to
> *those* people.


Chosing this venue, however, is an assertion by you that wikien-l is
populated by people who do care - and the responses are indicating
otherwise.

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.  If he wants to
> take
> responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to represent
> himself that way to the world, and in other respects speak on behalf of the
> project--which he does, whether you like it or not--then he ought to be
> held
> to a higher standard than most.
>
> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
> to get it out there.


Your attitude shows a complete disdain for the purpose and subscribers to
wikien-l.  This is not a public bulletin board.  This is not a printing
press you own.  If we tell you this is not the right place, then you have no
property rights over the medium or our inboxes to insist that we continue to
receive your messages here.

If you believe that you have a right to "raise hell" on this list...   I
request that the list moderators moderate Larry immediately.

That's not what wikien-l is for.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/10 George Herbert :

> If you believe that you have a right to "raise hell" on this list...   I
> request that the list moderators moderate Larry immediately.


So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
that's stopped that from happening.

I'd hope he'd know how to comport himself with more dignity.


- d.

___
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

[doc]

David Gerard wrote:

> 
> So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
> that's stopped that from happening.
> 
> - d.
> 


You mean co-founding, surely? ;)

Scott

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/10 doc :
> David Gerard wrote:

>> So far it's only been respect for his role in the founding of the site
>> that's stopped that from happening.

> You mean co-founding, surely? ;)


*cough* The whole event was before my time, so I won't assert anything
I don't have sufficient third-party references for!


- d.

___
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

[doc]

George Herbert wrote:
> That's not what wikien-l is for.
> 
> 


So, to raise a more important point, which should be more pertinent to 
the purpose of this list, and of more immediate concern to Wikipedia's 
integrity.

I thought I should alert the august and serious readers of this list, to 
the fact that we now have a "Requests for Comment" on the pressing 
question of whether or not we should include Richard Gere's rumoured 
altercation with a Gerbil in his biography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Gere#Gerbil

I mean, why discuss founders and co-founders when we have other Serius 
Bizniz on the wiki?

Scott

___
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

[Phil Nash]

Larry Sanger wrote:
>> I'm sure I'll have more to say about posts to this list from the
>> last 24 hours or so, but I did want to respond to this.
>>
>> Various people said:
> So, please, both of you, get yourself some blogs and hash
>>> it out away
> from wikipedia servers, and away from community at large. We don't
> need it.
>
> Rant over.
 Thank you!
>>> Hear, hear (to both of you)!
>>
>> You are misunderstanding what's going on here.  Jimmy Wales has been
>> lying about me and my role in this project.  This is a SERIOUS
>> PROBLEM, and I frankly resent your implicit dismissal of my concerns.
>>
>> This isn't "just more of the same"; I am *not* asking for the
>> community's resolution on the issue of "who is founder."  That
>> really *would* be inane, but it isn't what I am doing.  You would
>> know this, by the way, if you had actually read my open letter to
>> Jimmy Wales.
>>
>> I am speaking out first time, publicly, by saying that Jimmy Wales
>> has been lying about me in a way that is self-serving.  If you don't
>> care about that, that's your prerogative.  You don't need to
>> announce to the world that you don't care.  There *are* a lot of
>> people who *do* care.  I'm speaking to *those* people.
>>
>> 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 is not, and you have no "right" to anything other than as an ordinary 
user of Wikipedia. [[WP:SOAPBOX]] and [[WP:POINT]] spring to mind. Your 
personal disagreements have no place either in Wikipedia or on this list, so 
I strongly advise you to take them elsewhere. As an Admin, I'd have no 
qualms about blocking you indefinitely if this does not immediately stop. 
Whereas you might also have sockpuppets and meatpuppets, their blocking 
would follow as sure as night follows day. But the bottom line is that this 
disruption is unseemly and intolerable. Some of us have an encyclopedia to 
build, and personal disputes are inimical to that purpose.

Please stop wasting our time.




___
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

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Larry Sanger
 wrote:
> 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.

This is completely untrue. Both wikipedia and this mailing-list are
run by the Wikimedia foundation, a private entity, meaning that they
(and, by extension, the moderators and the administrators on
wikipedia) can absolutely decide what does or does not go on here.

This is a concept you should be very familiar with. On the Citizendium
Fundamentals page ( http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals )
you find this little nugget of information: "...there will be a
process for rapidly removing rulebreakers from the project. While most
people will enjoy the privilege of contributing to the Citizendium if
they are able to make a positive difference, there is a blanket right
neither to contribute nor to participate in the project's governance."
As I understand it, you are quite happy to suspend the editing rights
of anyone that's causing trouble or causing strife within the
community (something I don't have any problem with; it's your project,
do what you like).

Wikipedia is likewise not a free speech zone, nor is it some sort of
grand democratic experiment. Just because anyone can edit initially,
it doesn't mean that we have to keep what you say live on our site.
Same thing goes for our mailing-list.

If you spend even a little time on our site, you'll find that there
have literally been hundreds (if not thousands) of extremely
destructive trolls who have made exactly the same argument that you
are making. "You're restricting my freedom of speech! I'm gonna report
you to the Hague!" By acting like this, and using this argument,
you're rapidly becoming part of that group. Is that something you
desire? Let me ask you, if someone made that argument on CZ, what
would you do?

I admire both you and Jimmy quite a bit, but on this issue, you're
both acting like petulant children. Grow the fuck up.

--Oskar

___
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

[Larry Sanger]

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

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Larry Sanger
 wrote:
> 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.

No, he's exactly right. Wikipedia is not, and it has never been a free
speech zone. It has never been a goal of the project to provide people
a platform for people to say whatever they want. Wikipedia is
absolutely not "devoted to free speech".

See, we're an *encyclopedia*, not a public forum. We may let anyone
edit, but we're always going to be first and foremost an encyclopedia.
Everything else is second to that.

 If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there.

--Oskar

___
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 Herbert]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> 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.


Wikipedia is not and should not be:
* A battleground on which to fight external conflicts
* A primary source
* A social website or discussion board

Wikipedia is:
* An encyclopedia

What you are saying falls into the first categories and not the last.

It's about the project, in a sense, regarding the history of it.  But it's
an aspect of the history that the rest of us were not there for, and which
does not bear on anything significant for the project going forwards.

Trying to use the encyclopedia project, its people and project mailing
lists, to fight a personal vendetta is blatant disregard for the
encyclopedia project.  It's insulting to us and the project.

You could be right on the facts.  I don't have any knowledge either way.
But even if you are, this is not the place for it, and your approach here
was improper and abusive to the project.  It has not helped your reputation,
has not helped clear up the history, has not helped the encyclopedia in any
way.

Please take this somewhere else.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
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]

> 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.  If he wants to
> take
> responsibility, as he does, as sole founder of the project, to represent
> himself that way to the world, and in other respects speak on behalf of
> the
> project--which he does, whether you like it or not--then he ought to be
> held
> to a higher standard than most.
>
> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my
> right
> to get it out there.
>
> --Larry

Larry,

You know better than that. In any event you've raised your hell and
gotten your answer, both from Jimmy Wales and the Wikipedia community.
There has to be an end to any fuss. This list is for discussion of the
English Wikipedia. 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.

"Never wrestle with a pig: You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."
And I'm NOT talking about YOU liking it.

Fred Bauder



___
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

[Larry Sanger]

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

[Larry Sanger]

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

[Tris Thomas]

Objection, what I think most people have said is that they think you are 
probably correct in this little issue about being a co-founder, but to 
be honest they don't really care & would prefer not to have their inbox 
filled with rubbish.  Most people seem to think that complaining here is 
pointless & annoying!  What is true is that they have rejected your 
drive to get Wales/Foundation board to apologise & say you were right 
all along because they can't see the point & just want you to stop 
damaging Wikipedia to get publicity for Citizendium.

That last little bit might have been my view :-) but the rest is the 
impression I get from people, correct me if I'm wrong anyone

On 11/04/2009 01:33, Larry Sanger wrote:
> 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
>
___
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

[Larry Sanger]

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

Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Fred Bauder]

> 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

Foundation-l is not different from this list with respect to the
questions you are raising. It is meant for discussion of subjects
regarding all Wikimedia projects, not for personal disputes.

Fred Bauder





___
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

[Larry Sanger]

This is not a mere "personal dispute," Fred.

Anyway, I'm out of here.

> -Original Message-
> From: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
> [mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:51 PM
> To: 'English Wikipedia'
> Subject: 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
> 
> Foundation-l is not different from this list with respect to 
> the questions you are raising. It is meant for discussion of 
> subjects regarding all Wikimedia projects, not for personal disputes.
> 
> Fred Bauder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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 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

[Puddl Duk]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tris Thomas  wrote:
> Objection, what I think most people have said is that they think you are
> probably correct in this little issue about being a co-founder, but to
> be honest they don't really care & would prefer not to have their inbox
> filled with rubbish.  Most people seem to think that complaining here is
> pointless & annoying!  What is true is that they have rejected your
> drive to get Wales/Foundation board to apologise & say you were right
> all along because they can't see the point & just want you to stop
> damaging Wikipedia to get publicity for Citizendium.
>
> That last little bit might have been my view :-) but the rest is the
> impression I get from people, correct me if I'm wrong anyone
>

Newsflash: Sanger didn't open the door to this 'founder' dispute.

A man has a right to defend himself.

Larry's open letter is appropriate here. He's addressing Jimbo in
front of the community regarding Jimbo's behavior that involves the
community. It's a pity Jimbo doesn't have the courage to show his face
here. If those IRC logs are correct he seems to have plenty to say
behind Larry's back.

Finally, Larry's words are clear and purposeful, if a little long.
Davide Gerard on the other hand is making comments that are snide and
arrogant and attributing Larry's complaints to something other than
his complaints. David, please stop.

___
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

[Mark Nilrad]

Wikipedia says Wikipedia was "a complementary project for Nupedia". 
Citenzendium says Wikipedia was "an accidental spin-off of Nupedia". Is there 
any reason to say that? How can a project be an "accidental spin-off" of 
something else?

Noble Story





From: Carcharoth 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:00:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/4/10 Jon :
>
>> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
>> thread.  What is citizendium?  Is there a linky?
>
>
> http://citizendium.org/
>
> It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
> that isn't Wikipedia.

We also have an article on it, as well as one on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia


Citizendium have an article on Wikipedia and also one on Citizendium:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Wikipedia
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium

It's quite interesting reading those four articles and comparing them.

Carcharoth

___
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 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

[Sheldon Rampton]

I haven't written anything on wikien-l in a long time, but I've been  
following a bit of this thread about Larry Sanger's open letter and  
thought I'd propose something.

Wikis are good for purposes other than creating encyclopedias, and it  
might be interesting to see if Jimmy and Larry could use a wiki to  
resolve their differences.

Currently the way in which the conflict is being expressed is leading  
toward more polarization and hostility rather than less. One of the  
things we see frequently often on wikis, however, is that people who  
have strong disagreements about some topic can nevertheless agree to a  
considerable degree on what an article about that topic should say.  
The process of reiteratively editing a single article often leads to a  
synthesis that multiple parties accept. (In some cases, a mediator or  
arbitration committee may need to render a judgment, but this is only  
necessary in a minority of cases.)

So here's my proposal, if Jimmy and Larry would agree to it: Why don't  
they both start a wiki page in which they both edit and revise a  
statement describing the history of Wikipedia and their roles within  
it? Rather than do this on Wikipedia, I would suggest doing this on a  
private wiki that only they and other parties of their choosing are  
allowed to see. If they would both agree to go through this process, I  
think they might find it possible to work out something that they can  
both accept. And if they can't reach and agreement, they can look for  
some independent third parties to mediate.

Right now there is some obvious hostility between them, but I think  
they both should have good reason to want to overcome that. They both  
played crucial roles in creating what has now become a remarkable  
project of great benefit to the world, and they both should feel pride  
and satisfaction in what they've accomplished. Watching this conflict  
simmer and bubble (as it has now for years) is a bit like watching the  
Beatles feuding after the band broke up. I think it would be better  
for both parties' reputations, and for their personal happiness as  
well, if they could find some way to reconcile, and the current  
process doesn't seem to be leading that way.

Just a suggestion.

---

SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713

Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:


Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:


Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:


Support independent, public interest reporting:





___
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

[Seth Finkelstein]

> David Gerard
>
> Seth Finkelstein is apparently going to try for another hatchet job on
> the subject in the Guardian, after his previous one was severely
> gutted (in case you're wondering why it didn't appear to make sense).

David Gerard is speaking blithering nonsense. I presume he's
talking about my article:

"Sting in the Scorpions tale is the exposure of Wiki's weakness"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/wikipedia-jimmy-wales

It wasn't "gutted". I voluntarily took out one paragraph from
a draft, which discussed an incident involving him arguably abusing his
powers. This was done after another involved Wikipedian made an
extensive calm, rational, and to me convincing, case not to include
the incident, partially on humanitarian grounds.

His (Gerard's) bullying reflected immense discredit on him, and
if anything, added an implication of a cover-up. _Guardian_ editors
should have made clear that any attempted intimidation would not work.
Overall, it was quite a counter-productive performance. And while he
didn't quite manage an "own goal", the community really should be
aware of how poorly his conduct presents The Encyclopedia to those
not already besotted.

I'd also say his comment about "didn't appear to make sense"
says more about him than about my article.

Many factors go into the focus and editing of a column. Do not
think the sun rises because a small rooster crows loudly.

--
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/

___
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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Larry Sanger wrote:
>
>
> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
> to get it out there.
>   

You Are JoeM, And I Claim My Five Pounds.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


___
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

[Seth Finkelstein]

> Oskar Sigvardsson
> If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there.

In watching this incident unfold, I've been impressed
regarding the way that the take-it-to-where-Jimbo-*is* strategy
appears to be *right*, as a matter of effectiveness. Despite the limited
perceptions of those who are quick to deem critics as trolls, I'm
fascinated by the group dynamics and sociology of Wikipedia.

Now, phrases like "free speech" can lead to knee-jerking as people
rush to recite cliches. Yada, yada, First-Amendment-is-government,
private-legal-rights, blah, blah. Like the old joke, we should just
number those arguments, so people could simply say "#17" or "#23", and
get them out of the way. Been there, done that, got the flame-wars.

We're really talking about qualities like ethics and fairness
in pursuit of justice (very vague words, I know). What's so interesting
in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's evidence reached
some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly
influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles. And apparently
only because it was put in the places those editors read, over many
formalistic and legalistic objections (WP:THISPOLICYMEANSWHATISAYITDOES).

That is, on his website, the "right" people *DID* *NOT* *READ* *IT*.
You could link to it. You could have a _Guardian_ columnist repeatedly
refer to it in articles about Wikipedia 1/2 :-). You could bring it up
over and over in various comments. *DIDN'T* *MATTER*. Only a very
particular setting was effective in this case.

It should be needless to say, but this is significant for
building an encyclopedia. More broadly, it's a lesson in, let's say,
"information flow", that has some important implications for trying to
ensure accuracy.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/

___
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

[Brian]

In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia
Foundation is.

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Mark Nilrad  wrote:

> Wikipedia says Wikipedia was "a complementary project for Nupedia".
> Citenzendium says Wikipedia was "an accidental spin-off of Nupedia". Is
> there any reason to say that? How can a project be an "accidental spin-off"
> of something else?
>
> Noble Story
>
>
>
>
> 
> From: Carcharoth 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:00:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> > 2009/4/10 Jon :
> >
> >> I was scanning the list today so I've not read every message in this
> >> thread.  What is citizendium?  Is there a linky?
> >
> >
> > http://citizendium.org/
> >
> > It's another attempt to make a wiki-based free content encyclopedia
> > that isn't Wikipedia.
>
> We also have an article on it, as well as one on Wikipedia:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizendium
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
>
>
> Citizendium have an article on Wikipedia and also one on Citizendium:
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Wikipedia
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium
>
> It's quite interesting reading those four articles and comparing them.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
___
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

[wjhonson]

-Original Message-
From: Brian 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely 
irrelevant.
Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia
Foundation is.>>
-

Foundations like companies are mostly the worst possible historians.  
They have a vested interest in rewriting history to match their current 
goals.

Will Johnson




___
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

[Ray Saintonge]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
> Suck it up, and take your petty fight elsewhere! I don't know what
> happened in the early days of wikipedia, and I don't much care to. You
> have different versions of the same story, and the constant carping is
> getting tiring. And wikipedia and wikipedians are getting caught right
> in the middle. Wikipedia is getting a bad rep because of all this, and
> many different users are locked in an endless struggle trying to do
> either Jimmy's or Larry's bidding.

You're assuming that the general public gives a damn enough to affect 
the reputation.

Ec

___
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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> 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, and you don't.  I find this part of your argument the strangest.
You require approval and a 50 word-biography in order for someone to post on
your talk page at Citizendium.  The ability to use a user talk page is
clearly a privilege which can be granted or can be taken away.


> If you don't like my message, that's fine, but do not try to deny my right
> to get it out there.


Your right to get your message out there stops at the point where you try to
use someone else's website to do so.
___
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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Larry Sanger
wrote:

> 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.


Pot meet kettle.
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
___
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

[Anthony]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Larry Sanger <
> sanger-li...@citizendium.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Pot meet kettle.
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
>

And don't forget
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877
___
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

[Brian]

Lets just be clear that this is an IMHO that has nothing to do with my point
- the source of authority on the subject. All primary sources are biased in
that respect.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM,  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Brian 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:54 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
>
> In my opinion what Wikipedia says about this matter is entirely
> irrelevant.
> Wikipedia is not a source of authority on the matter - the Wikimedia
> Foundation is.>>
> -
>
> Foundations like companies are mostly the worst possible historians.
> They have a vested interest in rewriting history to match their current
> goals.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 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

[wjhonson]

-Original Message-
From: Anthony 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales


And don't forget
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877>>
___


So apparently Citizendium allows free speech but only if you are very 
polite, which includes not pointing out other people's breach of the 
rules.
(I had written a much more pointy response but then deleted it.)

Will "is this horse dead yet" Johnson




___
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

[wjhonson]

Brian, the foundation is not the "source of authority" on what did or 
didn't happen years before they existed.  The sources of authority 
would be those people who were actually present and involved in the 
situation.

I'm sure that the entire company wasn't solely Jimmy and Larry.  There 
are probably others who were employees or whatever who could also be 
interviewed on the matter.

As well there are archives of what Jimmy and Larry did or didn't say, 
and when and to whom.  The foundation really is irrelevant in writing 
the "History of Wikipedia: The First Two Years".  They aren't even a 
primary source.

Will Johnson




___
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

[FT2]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Seth Finkelstein  wrote:

> What's so interesting in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's

evidence reached
> some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly
> influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles.



The article where this is covered, [[History of Wikipedia]] had a neutral
balanced and stable assessment of the Sanger/Wales dispute and
"founder/co-founder" issue, for years now.It had nothing to do with "Larry
Sanger's evidence" reaching a "tiny number of core editors", and everything
to do with mass participation. It was well described as far back as 2007 and
(unless vandalized) is so today.

FT2
___
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

[Brian]

Jimmy Wales is part of the Wikimedia Foundation.

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 3:35 AM,  wrote:

> Brian, the foundation is not the "source of authority" on what did or
> didn't happen years before they existed.  The sources of authority
> would be those people who were actually present and involved in the
> situation.
>
> I'm sure that the entire company wasn't solely Jimmy and Larry.  There
> are probably others who were employees or whatever who could also be
> interviewed on the matter.
>
> As well there are archives of what Jimmy and Larry did or didn't say,
> and when and to whom.  The foundation really is irrelevant in writing
> the "History of Wikipedia: The First Two Years".  They aren't even a
> primary source.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 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

[wjhonson]

-Original Message-
From: Brian 
To: English Wikipedia 
Sent: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 3:56 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales is part of the Wikimedia Foundation.

--
Yes and many others who were there at the beginning, are not now part 
of the Foundation.  The Foundation isn't relevant to writing a history, 
that's my point.  They are not the seat of authority on that matter and 
they aren't even a primary source because most of them weren't a party 
to the early machinations.  The people who make up the Foundation today 
are relative  newcomers.  At least for this particular purpose.

Will Johnson




___
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

[Oskar Sigvardsson]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>
>> Pot meet kettle.
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
>>
>
> And don't forget
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877

And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia.

--Oskar

___
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

[Ian Woollard]

Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more
accurate than the citizendium one in this case:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy

On 11/04/2009, Oskar Sigvardsson  wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>
>>> Pot meet kettle.
>>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
>>>
>>
>> And don't forget
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877
>
> And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia.
>
> --Oskar
>
> ___
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
-Ian Woollard

We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly
imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect
world would be pretty ghastly though.

___
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

[Phil Nash]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Pot meet kettle.
 http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185

"The Constabulary"? How precious! Yet another reason why I won't be going 
there.






___
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]

> Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony  wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony 
 wrote:

> Pot meet kettle.
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
>
> "The Constabulary"? How precious! Yet another reason why I won't be going
> there.

"A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making
complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the
behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constab...@citizendium.org. It is
contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See
also CZ:Professionalism."

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints

Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
complaints...

Fred Bauder



___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/11 Fred Bauder :

> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
> complaints...


Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its
associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.


- d.

___
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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

2009/4/11 Fred Bauder :

> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints
>
> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
> complaints...

On Wikipedia, if you have an issue with an editor, you post a message
on his/her talk page. What do the rules on any outside website have to
do with the way things are done on Wikipedia?

Michel

___
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

[doc]

Ian Woollard wrote:
> Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more
> accurate than the citizendium one in this case:
> 
> http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy
> 

I /really/ don't think Wikipedia wants a pissing contest here.

Do we really want to compare the worst article we can find on 
Citizendium with Wikipedians worst?

I think we'd clearly lose.



___
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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

2009/4/11 David Gerard :
> 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder :
>
>> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
>> complaints...
>
>
> Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
> wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its
> associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.

I don't get the point.

In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you
criticise the Dear Leader.

Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?

Michel

___
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

[Sam Korn]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
> 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder :
>
>> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
>> complaints...
>
>
> Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
> wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its
> associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.

Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a
wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else.

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key

___
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

[David Gerard]

2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke :

> I don't get the point.
> In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you
> criticise the Dear Leader.
> Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?


No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying "I'M GOING
TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME" falls afoul of it.

You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea.


- d.

___
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

[Carcharoth]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sam Korn  wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard  wrote:
>> 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder :
>>
>>> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
>>> complaints...
>>
>>
>> Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
>> wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its
>> associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
>
> Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a
> wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else.

Seconded. And that's my last post to this thread.

Carcharoth

___
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

[Anthony]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:32 AM,  wrote:

> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony 
> To: English Wikipedia 
> Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:51 pm
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
>
>
> And don't forget
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100448877
> >>
> ___
>
>
> So apparently Citizendium allows free speech but only if you are very
> polite, which includes not pointing out other people's breach of the
> rules.
> (I had written a much more pointy response but then deleted it.)


No, this has nothing to do with free speech.  Both Larry and Jimbo have a
right to remove unhelpful complaints, but they were both wrong because they
removed legitimate complaints.
___
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

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

2009/4/11 David Gerard :
> 2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke :
>
>> I don't get the point.
>> In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you
>> criticise the Dear Leader.
>> Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
>
>
> No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying "I'M GOING
> TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME" falls afoul of it.
>
> You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea.

There's very probably an article on Wikipedia somewhere explaining
just what you did there.

/end of discussion for me too.

___
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

[Nathan]

Folks, shout Larry down all you want - I know I personally would be happy to
see the co-founder dispute disappear forever. But threats to block or
moderate him are overboard; there is no basis for either action (and a block
would result in repercussions for the blocking admin, I'd imagine).

Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l