Jump to content

Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

"Geek Anti-Intellectualism" & Reading Bear

My recent blog post, "Is There a New Geek Anti-Intellectualism?" was much-discussed, maybe as much as anything else I've written: http://larrysanger.org/2011/06/is-there-a-new-geek-anti-intellectualism/

Also, the name of my new early reading project is Reading Bear. The demo URL is http://watchknowreader.busedge.com/

--Larry Sanger (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The new Reading Bear URL = http://www.ReadingBear.org/ --Larry Sanger (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If you need a "reliable source" for Reading Bear, try this TNW coverage. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Is this correct?

Interview - "Larry Sanger on co-founding Wikipedia and how online education could change the world"

Good interview here - "Larry Sanger on co-founding Wikipedia and how online education could change the world". It's a possible source for items in the article. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:L Sanger.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:L Sanger.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The result of the nomination for deletion was keep. The deletion debate is here. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There was a suggestion in an edit summary that perhaps the hatnote pointing to User:Larry Sanger could be moved to the "External links" section of the article (as is done at Jimmy Wales). I would support this. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem here with that. --Malerooster (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. It was already in the EL section, but I didn't notice it before. --Malerooster (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Consequentialism

I saw that you edited the "Consequentialism" website. I am trying to create an open source project similar to Wikipedia, but that uses a different format. It states a belief like: "The end does not justify the means" and then lists reasons to agree or disagree separately. You are then able to click on any of the reasons, to find reasons to agree or disagree with them. I have created an example of how it might work here: http://myclob.pbworks.com/w/page/21959922/The%20end%20does%20not%20justify%20the%20means However, I am looking for more people to help. The above site is the 7th result if you google “The end does not justify the means”. And so you would be providing direction to about 1,700 people a month, in a very organized way that I believe holds a lot of promise. If you would like to help edit the site, please contact me and I will give you the password. If you are interested more in the project, I explain it better here: http://code.google.com/p/ideastockexchange/ myclob (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a BLP

Please keep in mind that Dr. Sanger is a person. Our perspective is easily skewed by his short-but-essential time at this project. Try to balance out the size of the sections accordingly.--207.62.246.64 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

While stating "to appreciate…"

While stating "to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well," Sanger expressed that there are serious problems with the project.

This sentence didn't quite make sense and I had to go to original article to get enough context to parse the meaning. Is there a way to reword it to be more clear? Something like:

While stating he is someone who "appreciate[s] the merits of Wikipedia fully" and "knows and supports the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well," Sanger expressed that there are serious problems with the project.

(I'm an employee of the WMF so I'm worried about a COI if I make the edit myself, so someone please review to see if I have it right.)

-- tychay (tchay@wikimedia) (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have modified the sentence now. Missimack (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

POV issues

This article seems to take Sanger's announcements and press releases as fact rather readily, even for projects known to have largely failed. The "Citizendium" section reads like an advertisement for Citizendium, for example. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is your opinion that the Citizendium section reads like an advertizement. No specific text is under dispute per Larry Sanger's WP:V policy. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is the relevant policy, my good fellow. And it has whole sections on undue weight and bias, which this article fundamentally violates. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:WEIGHT. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints...
If there are more viewpoints we can expand the article. What needs to be rewritten or balanced? If you want to delete whole sections or paragraphs I strongly disagree. Some editors prefer short, concise articles. Not me. You must gain consensus to chop up (delete large sections) the article. According to Larry Sanger consensus is impractical, anyhow. What to do? If it ain't broke don't fix it. QuackGuru (talk) 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? The whole Citizendium section almost solely consists of quotes and information from Sanger press releases and maybe a couple other people who are for it. I actually did a check on Citizendium. [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers A mere 25 people edited it in the last month. It's clearly an utter failure. There's a source from early 2012 quoted for the number of approved articles and number of articles. I was going to object, but Citizendium's front page gives the same numbers today - indicating it's, at best, barely active.

This is a puff piece. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It is a well written article. You are not objecting to every section of the article. Editors often disagree to the level of detail in articles. I don't see what needs to be rewritten. I object to deleting large sections or paragraphs. On Wikipedia we go by the sources. Your personal opinion on how CZ is doing is irrelevant to the discussion. However, I did recently update the article explaining it is a small project. QuackGuru (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I think the vast majority of this article has the same problems. It takes Larry Sanger's side on pretty much every issue, every assessment, every disputed interpretation. It may be well-written, but it's not neutral. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You have not shown what other sides need to be included. The text meets V and NPOV policies. If there is text that is not accurate enough of course any editor may improve it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's patently obvious. Only Sanger's view of his own projects is presented. He is not a neutral source on his own work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It is a fact there are a variety of sources in the CZ section (and the article). What other views or sources are missing from the CZ section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Bergstein, Brian (March 25, 2007). "Citizendium aims to be better Wikipedia". USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

Here are sources in the Larry Sanger#Citizendium section and the Larry Sanger#Contrast to Wikipedia section that verify the text. What needs to be rewritten when all the text is sourced and neutrally written. QuackGuru (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

All of those are from Citizendium's first year, and the majority of them appear to be either press releases that heavily quote Sanger, interviews with Sanger, or otherwise 90% Sanger material. You do understand that the point of press releases is to get material in the press, right? That's hardly all relevant views. Compare an actual, recent source, such as [1] which says that Citizendium has failed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The article may include the source you presented to balance views. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work here by Adam Cuerden to identify the problems of this article. QuackGuru has been repeatedly warned against article ownership and disruptive editing, going back six years, and it appears he has not stopped. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru for some idea of the community's observations about this editor. I am going to trim this article of its over-reliance on primary sources, and its rambling into tangential topics, starting with the too-long Citizendium section. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is not an over-reliance on primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Your work today to reduce the Citizendium section was very good—thank you. My subsequent trim job reduced the rest of the article by 8kb, especially removing primary references such as a GeoCities website, lots of larrysanger.org URLs, and a bunch of wiki- and nupedia-based pages. In my opinion, WP:SECONDARY sources are needed here to make certain that the facts we present to the reader are important to the general public rather than important to Sanger alone. WP:WEIGHT should be appropriate. For instance, who cares whether Sanger plays the fiddle in his spare time? Very few do. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The text must still be verifiable. So I restored two refs. QuackGuru (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Author JJ Anderson confirms the birthdate in her book, so there is no need for the primary source named "Enlightenment". All of the other internal Wikipedia and Nupedia references cannot be used because they are not reliable. Marshall Poe and others discuss these same points in their articles, and these cites are already in place. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I restored one ref with the text. This is an important part of the origins of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GAR

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Larry Sanger/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Quite simply, in many cases, this reads more as an advertisement for Sanger's views and projects than an encyclopedic article about them. For example, the section on Citizendium - which appears to have failed utterly by now - talks at length about how it solves Wikipedia's problems, and overuses promotional press releases by Sanger, to the point of reading like an advertisement for why you should stop reading Wikipedia and hop over there.

These sorts of articles are hard to get perfect, but we can do so much better than this. This fails WP:WIAGA criterion 4, for not being reasonably neutral. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The one editor this has hasn't edited this section, and may feel free to start a community review if he likes, but it's obvious from conversation with him this isn't going to get fixed. This has such major POV problems and overuse of Primary sources (plus a few probably-not-actually-independent promotional pieces from 2007) that it can't stand as a GA. Have hagiography if you like, but such articles can never be considered the best of Wikipedia. Demoted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Email from Wales

I deleted an email from Wales saying Sanger was the one who suggested a wiki. Here's the bit:

Wales stated in October 2001 that it was "Larry (who) had the idea to use Wiki software for a separate project."

The reference URL is http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/000671.html

The most important reason to delete this bit is that we have many other sources saying Sanger brought the wiki idea to Wales. The section about the "Origins of Wikipedia" fairly beats the reader over the head with various affirmations of Sanger's role, all because Wales tried to hide it. The beating we are giving to the reader is far too much.

I removed the above sentence and reference because it is not needed, and because it has problems with WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR. We should not use emails as reliable sources, and we should not use Wikipedia as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The reference URL is now http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=182853
Ferraro, Nicole (October 9, 2009). "Wikipedia Co-Founder Speaks Out Against Jimmy Wales". Internet Evolution. UBM LLC. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
I included the text because it is needed. The new source is reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Nicole Ferraro's article is reliable, so that part is taken care of. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Origins of Wikipedia section

Now we are faced with the section "Origins of Wikipedia" which should be reduced in size because of massive redundancy. We tell the reader over and over that Sanger originated the idea of Wikipedia, and that he was the co-founder with Wales. Statements such as those should only be made once, citing several of the best sources. (As an almost humorous aside, the whole section should be called what it really is: Rebuttal to Wales' downplaying of Sanger's role.) Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Different sources say different things. I think the section is fine the way it is. No need to chop the section apart. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The encyclopedia does not exist to list every source; it exists to summarize the sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is a sentence below that is in the Larry Sanger#Origins of Wikipedia section that does not go into excessive detail, for example.

Wales stated in 2005 that he had initially heard of the wiki concept in 2001 not from Sanger, but instead from Jeremy Rosenfeld.

Ref used in the section http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/05/assignment_zero_citizendium
The section is well balanced using different sources which have different stories to tell. A news story has many paragraphs and details. The Origins of Wikipedia section is short compared to a long article written by a reporter that often tell only part of the story. This section informs the reader that Larry Sanger originally had the idea to create Wikipedia using wiki software, for example. Of course, Jimmy Wales may dispute who initially had the idea to create a wiki but it is included in the section without excessive details. I could expand it and add a lot more details such as quotes and specific dates about specific events but editors did not do that because editors including myself wanted the section to be readable without going into too much detail. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Readable? The section, combined with "Nupedia and Wikipedia" before it, is a patchwork of redundancy. For instance, the following sentences cover the same material:

  • "...in January 2001, Sanger proposed a wiki be created to spur article development, and the result of this proposal was Wikipedia."
  • "...so Sanger initiated a separate site named Wikipedia."
  • "Sanger spearheaded and named the project"
  • "Contemporary media sources describe Wikipedia as having been founded by Wales and Sanger."
  • "During the time of Sanger's involvement in the project, he was routinely known as a co-founder."
  • "The Wikimedia Foundation's first press release in 2004 described Sanger as co-founder."
  • "Sanger is widely cited in the media as a co-founder."
  • "Sanger initially proposed the wiki concept to Wales..."
  • "Sanger formally proposed a "feeder" project for Nupedia titled "Nupedia Wiki" and created a new page on Ward's wiki named 'WikiPedia.'"
  • "Sanger came up with the name 'Wikipedia'"
  • "Sanger first conceived of the wiki-based encyclopedia project..."

See how bad it is? It's terrible, an affront to the intelligence of our readers. I intend to blast through these two sections to streamline the prose. Binksternet (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I trimmed the section. It is more concise now. Don't "blast" through any section on any article. Small changes one edit at a time is better. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
You shortened the article by about 4 kb which is a good start. I intend further trimming and streamlining of prose. Binksternet (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Please go ahead and further trim the section (without blasting it up). QuackGuru (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Text passed verification

"Citizendium was launched as a pilot in October 2006, before going public in March 2007. Citizendium – the citizens’ compendium of everything – is an English wiki-based online encyclopedia that aims to improve on what Wikipedia offers by providing increased reliability through stricter moderation and ‘expert oversight’. I asked Larry what the state of play with the project is in 2011 “Citizendium is still active”, he says. “It’s still being developed in the sense that people are still writing articles for it, and it’s still being maintained. I’m not overly concerned about funding at the moment, we got some nice donations in the last month, enough to keep us going for several months. And we’re probably going to start looking for some free hosting at some point."[2]

As of 2011, the state of the Citizendium project is still active and articles are being written and maintained.

The text is sourced. If an editor still thinks a 2011 source cannot support the text indefinitely is irrelevant. When sources are available in the future the article will be updated. We don't write text in the article for the future from non-existence sources or how editors personally feel about the future of Citizendium. So I made this change. I don't understand the weasel words tag when the text is sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Should be past tense: "As of 2011, the state of the Citizendium project was still active and articles were being written and maintained." Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
An editor claimed the text failed verification when the text obviously passed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
It fails verification when you're using a two-year-old source to talk about what's happening now. Also, remember how I mentioned above about how I was going to complain about a 2012 dsource, but then I checked the website and the numbers were still the same in both the number of Approved/Citable articles and the number of articles to the level of approximation used in the source? Perhaps articles are still being written, technically but I'd highly, highly question "maintained". And would especially question whether that whole statement wasn't just weasel words to make the situation look better than it is. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
"As of 2011, the state of the Citizendium project was still active and articles were being written and maintained."
The article does say "As of 2011"... This is past tense and not about today. Perhaps we should go by what the sources say rather than how you personally feel about what is happening on Citizendium today. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Citizendium experts

Text in article: "Citizendium experts have the final say for article content[71][97]"[needs update]

"How? The big difference between Citizendium and Wikipedia will be the presence of "experts" on Citizendium who will have the final say in editing disputes. Just who are the experts, though? The plan is for the site's operators to post the ideal "credentials" of an editor, and then contributors themselves will decide if they fit the bill. In other words, one essentially appoints oneself to the position of expert. An editor must publish their own credentials online, and these credentials must be verifiable. I'm sorry Mbutu Ngangi, but you can't be an editor just because you say you have millions of dollars in Laos and five doctorates."[3]

"Larry Sanger describes the Citizendium project as a "progressive or gradual fork", with the major difference that experts have the final say over edits. In other ways it promises to be very similar: the system requires users to sign up, it will also be based around a Wiki, it will strive to present a "Neutral Point of View"... and it will regularly be touting for donations."[4]

The text is sourced. Is there something editors missed? In what way the text needs updating? Do editors prefer to use this source instead. QuackGuru (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you're using 2006 sources, and acting as if they must apply to the present day. And Citable Versions is a subpage, not the main article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any other newer source that disagrees with the sourced text. I'm not sure what you want editors to do here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The current state of Citizendium should be argued at that article's talk page. Suffice to say here that some observers are calling it a failed effort, a footnote of history. (Rational Wiki says it was "moribund by June 2011"[5]. The Independent wrote in February 2009 that Citizendium "has failed to take off."[6] User:HaeB quoted "committed" Citizendium contributor Russell Porter who said in September 2008 that the project was "moribund"[7][8].) Let's not give the reader a rah-rah Pollyanna version. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Experts have a role on Citizendium" and similar statements

In the end, these are borderline meaningless, when they're meant to contrast to Wikipedia. I can't see any evidence of any sort of real expert peer review on Citizendium at present; I presume there was more in the past, but there's not really a way to convincingly draw that distinction accurately anymore.

While we may not be able to discuss this, we have no need to include patently untrue statements. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

If any sentence is not needed to describe Sanger's idea or Sanger's role then we can take it out. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed the similar statement but experts still edit the Ciizendium site and have a "special role". QuackGuru (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I find this sentence is irrelevant because it is not connected directly to a decision by Sanger. I have removed it. Binksternet (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Experts in the Citizendium community work with other editors on the wiki to approve articles.[82] The Good Article and the Featured Article systems on Wikipedia employs a review by editors.[86]
There are experts on Citizendium because of Sanger. This is fact. I propose we restore this text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. I restored that bit but I removed a bunch of synthesis formed from taking fact A from source A and comparing it to fact B from source B to get a result C. Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Reference http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/61983.html?welcome=1205003304&welcome=1205003861&wlc=1234584689&wlc=1235641480
I could not verify the text. If it is OR the reference can be used to add more contrast to Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Current text: "Sanger set up a system in which topic experts guide content within their area of expertise."

Suggestion: "Sanger set up a system in which experts work alongside other editors on the wiki."

I suggest we make this change. QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanger continues to support Citizendium

"On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[95][needs update]"

I can't find a current 2013 source to update the sentence. This is not dated information and I don't see evidence anything has changed. It needs updating if a current source is available. I propose we remove the tag and update the article when a newer source is presented. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The second half could well be dated. We could always say "But said, at the time, that..." Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I updated the text with your suggestion. QuackGuru (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanger said he would not head Citizendium indefinitely.

"Sanger has no plans to head the Citizendium project indefinitely; he has already announced his plan to step off the leadership team in two or three years. But what will the project look like at that time?"[9]

The text is sourced. Not sure why it was deleted. QuackGuru (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It is less important what Sanger announced. We should simply tell the reader what actually happened. Especially problematic was the synthesis which compared Sanger to Wales, using references which did not connect the two. Binksternet (talk) 05:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want the readers to think Sanger is still running the project when they read that particular section. They should know he made plans and did not abandon the project. QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You clearly think this is important. Please find a WP:SECONDARY source which describes this situation. That way we will have a third party who also thinks the item is important. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The author Nate Anderson, deputy editor at Ars Technica, did describe it. Read under heading: No dictator for life. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

"Let's make a wiki"

Sanger formally proposed a "feeder" project for Nupedia titled "Let's make a wiki".

Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki". Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Archived from the original (Email) on 2003-04-14. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

This rarely seen primary source was deleted. There are downsides to deleting primary sources. Methinks the primary source should be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No. The descriptor "rarely seen" is the yellow flag which should have alerted you. Wikipedia summarizes published sources. It does not serve as the initial publisher. Binksternet (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I am interested in including the ref in the article but not using it to verify any text. I think the readers would appreciate reading this historical type document. This reference shows how Wikipedia got started. QuackGuru (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Then write a blog and insert the link. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't need to write a blog when it has already been done. Sanger wrote an article on his blog that links to it. So I'll go ahead an insert the link in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
This is self-serving self-promotion by Sanger. Wait until WP:SECONDARY sources cover it. Binksternet (talk) 22:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

For the record

I think the article improvements are rapidly returning this to GA, or even FA status. The major remaining issue is tenses - there's a fair amount of present tense where past tense would be more appropriate. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


One other bit s the end of the Post-Wikipedia section, starting at the bit marked "discuss". There's nothing inherently wrong with the material, but it seems like the content about his views on the purpose of the internet should be in a more general section, perhaps about Sanger's philosophy, rather than slotted in chronologically by when he said them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Present tense can easily be changed to past tense. You can change the tense or mark the sentences that need updating.
I started a philosophy section and updated the URL dead link. QuackGuru (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I didn't have time at the time: I was about to head out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

WatchKnowLearn

WatchKnowLearn is notable for its own article on Wikipedia.[10] QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but it's borderline notable, so it'd need to be done with a little caution, since a lot of the sources will be press releases. If it can avoid primary source issues, I have no objection. I think we can agree InfoBitt would not qualify for an article unless a lot more press happens? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to start a new article. I thought someone else might be interested in starting WatchKnowLearn. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobitt

I suggest this change because the reader does not understand what is the Infobitt project. QuackGuru (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's wait for it to launch, ideally to get some press. That text is also awfully close to the text on the Infobitt front page, and I don't think we should use self-descriptions too willingly.
I can't imagine it'll be that much longer. It says "Launching Fall 2013" so give it a month or two and, unless the site immediately goes belly-up because Sanger was unable get any publicity, we should be able to write about it from a position of knowledge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The problem is I too did not understand what is Infobitt when I read this article. A small description here would benefit the reader. When better sources are available we can replace this source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this brief description works. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Please wait until a WP:SECONDARY source talks about it. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sanger's talk at a conference in Monterrey, Mexico

I removed the bit about Sanger's opinion of what the internet is about. It was cited to an online video showing Sanger speaking to a conference in Mexico in 2011. http://vimeo.com/7178138 It's just Sanger talking, not a reporter telling us what is interesting or controversial about Sanger's speech. It is a primary source, the same as Sanger blogging. I think we need to concentrate on WP:SECONDARY sources to build this article. Binksternet (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There in no problem with the video. Your saying if the same video was part of a secondary source then it would be okay. This is absurd. This misuse or use of policy here is getting out of hand. You can possibly argue for exclusion of just about anything. QuackGuru (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want this article to be a hagiography of Sanger, filled with unimportant ideas he had and words he said. It should tell the reader what worked, what was important. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, do remember that the article is also on Sanger himself. There's room to talk about his views, within reason, and some of that can be well-selected primary sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The speech is about Sanger's view on the importance of the Internet and information. His job is about using technology and the Internet to communication information. He is an Internet project developer. I think we might be able to improve the Philosophy section with more of Sanger's views. We can use Sanger's blog for his own views, for example. See WP:SELFPUB. QuackGuru (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
If I might suggest: Try to include things he's discussed at least three times. This is an arbitrary, of course, but it'll help to get the views that he's most passionate about. That said, for his projects, I think we'd best stick to secondary sources as much as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:SECONDARY sources have the advantage of third party observers judging what is important. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
The SELFPUB guideline says the material should not be "unduly self-serving". I find the Monterrey conference to be self-serving and also trivial. He did not shake the world with any of his statements. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
What he is passionate about is not "unduly self-serving". QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
So you say. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see consensus for you to continue to delete the text and link to the video. The text the Internet and information is relevant to Sanger's philosophy. QuackGuru (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Your editing history puts you on eggshells regarding this article and the behavior of edit-warring. You will need to gain consensus for inclusion before you accuse me of failing to gain consensus for deletion. Your arguments so far have been overly reliant on your own opinions rather than the opinions of third party observers. That is why I find your arguments unconvincing. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
You never had consensus to delete the video and there is no serious disagreement that Sanger's speech is not relevant.
You wrote "I removed the bit about Sanger's opinion of what the internet is about."
Sanger's opinion about the Internet is about Sanger's philosophy and is relevant to his job as Internet project developer. QuackGuru (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently this opinion you describe is a very minor one, or some reporter would have written about it. Wikipedia does not exist to help Sanger put his ideas forward, it exists to describe how Sanger's ideas have been described by third parties. The burden is on you, the editor who wishes to include disputed text and references. Your burden is to argue for inclusion and gain consensus. It does not matter how long the link has been in the article if it is a primary source of disputed value, questioned with regard to WP:UNDUE, and also with regard to the "unduly self-serving" limitation placed at WP:SELFPUB. Perhaps you can start a WP:Request for comment to settle the matter. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the burden is on you who the deleted text without gaining consensus first. According to you, you can delete anything you want and than turn around and say I must gain consensus for inclusion. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The burden is on anyone who wishes to insert, include, retain or restore text. A challenged bit of text has no special anti-deletion powers. You are correct in assuming that I can challenge any bit of text and require consensus for inclusion. However, if I challenge obviously major themes, or obviously important points, then I will be guilty of disruptive editing. In this case, I am not being disruptive—I am simply hoping that the biography of Sanger can be made to be factual and neutral, devoid of his preaching, his little-known observations, his little-known initiatives, etc. I want the article to tell the reader his most important achievements, and very little else. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:NOCONSENSUS:
In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.
As previously explained, you never had consensus to delete. See WP:IDHT.
You personally want the philosophy section not to include the text and link to his speech that is about Sanger's view of the Internet. QuackGuru (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

As a reminder, I would like to point out that all of the active editors have helped to make this biography more readable, streamlined and relevant since I started deleting text and references in August 2013. It went from 82 kb to its current 55 kb because editors were determined to get just the right tone quality along with better accessibility from faster load times and less extraneous text derailing the reader. I believe there is more streamlining to accomplish with regard to the story of Wikipedia's origin; I still see too much redundancy. Binksternet (talk) 05:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Essay for Edge Foundation

I don't think it is good for the biography to include a quote taken from the Sanger essay written for the Edge Foundation. The essay is preachy and unencyclopedic. It does not tell us what Sanger did, or what people thought of Sanger. It is a needless opportunity for Sanger to deliver his opinion as if Wikipedia is his blog. In this edit, QuackGuru offers Sanger a chance to explain how crucial it is to incorporate experts in the online encyclopedia model, but as it turns out, Sanger's 2007 thoughts were proven unimportant to the masses who chose not to take part in Citizendium. The quote is WP:UNDUE emphasis on an idea which has not been successful. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sanger is passionate about experts having a role for reliable information on the Internet. The point to a philosophy section is to add information about Sanger's views. QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The point to a philosophy section is to host descriptions of Sanger's views, descriptions made by reliable secondary sources rather than by a Wikipedia editor picking preferred quotes. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not cherry pick anything. He is passionate about the topic and we can include it per WP:SELFPUB. I previously told you about selfpub.
I think you have a disagreement over selfpub policy and what is the purpose of a philosophy section that is supposed to be about Sanger's view.
You think it is a needless opportunity for Sanger to deliver his opinion on Wikipedia but Sanger's opinion is his philosophy.
You claim Sanger's 2007 thoughts were proven unimportant to the masses who chose not to take part in Citizendium.
This is not about what is proven and not proven. You understand this is Sanger's thoughts and Sanger's thoughts is what goes into a philosophy section.
Or maybe you really don't like a philosophy section on Sanger's thoughts. It appears you think Sanger's thoughts will turn the article into his own blog.
Well, please keep in mind that the article is also on Sanger himself. There is obviously room to discuss his views, and some of that can be from selected primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
A brief check of the "Philosophy" section of the article shows that it contains four references, three written by Sanger and one by a third party. The three are given more prominence, with longer quotes. The conclusion is that the section relies unduly on primary sources.
I think the section should start with Sanger's actual scholarly work on the topic of philosophy, and touch upon whether he is considered a philosopher by others. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sanger's actual scholarly work on the topic of philosophy is not Sanger's views in general about his thoughts.
So you disagree with having a Philosophy section about his views. He is a former philosopher. Sanger said he is no longer teaching philosophy.
You want to replace or change the philosophy with a section about him being a philosopher. That makes no sense.
The first source was originally printed for the Egon Zehnder International.
The second source is printed for the Edge.
The third source is printed for the The Independent.
The fourth source is printed for the for Educause.
I don't see an issue with the sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Three of four sources are Sanger on Sanger. Who selected the fourth appreciation of Sanger's philosophy? An Oxford professor who wrote the piece. Who selected the other three Sanger-on-Sanger quotes? You did, QuackGuru, with only your personal preference to guide you. I would rather trust the insight of a published expert observer who is not an anonymous Wikipedia editor, which is why you keep seeing me hammer on WP:SECONDARY sources. Let's see some Sanger quotes that were selected by somebody other than Sanger or you. As well, we can represent Sanger's philosophy to the reader without such a dependence on quotes. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Sanger is not a very famous person. There is very little coverage about his philosophy. Most sources are about him co-founding Wikipedia. I selected the text based on what he is obviously most passionate about. So if we go by your standard there is not going to be a philosophy section any longer. I don't understand what is the problem with the text other than you want it to be published by a secondary source. There are ways to preserve the section. If the recent Essay for Edge Foundation is too long it can be shortened or summarized to preserve a philosophy section to present to the reader, for example. If you continue to hammer away or dispute the section without trying to replace it with another source or sources I'm afraid you will destroy the philosophy section. I don't understand why it looks like you think it is needless section to deliver his opinion as if Wikipedia is his blog. That is not the case. You use WP:SECONDARY as a way to bring the section down but I use WP:SELFPUB as a way to let the reader know about Sanger's views. QuackGuru (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
If the media are generally not commenting on Sanger's views then that fact strengthens the argument for removing a special section dedicated to Sanger's views. After shutting down the Philosophy section I think we can save the Andrew Keen piece and re-insert it into the post-Citizendium section wherever its chronology is relevant. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the Philosophy section. Another editor recommended to start the section. The sources are a good start to the section. QuackGuru (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A small, relevant philosophy section is appropriate, but do be careful; we don't want to just grab whatever sounds interesting. If he mentions something repeatedly, in prominent non-self-published sources, that might be enough in my opinion, to justify inclusion, and perhaps a quote from one of the sources. But we do need to avoid over-emphasizing one-off musings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

WatchKnowLearn

If this was to be capable of standing alone as an article, it should be possible to make a well-sourced section in this article about it. If we can't even get enough sources for a decent paragraph here, we shouldn't suggest it as a stand-alone article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence Sanger abandoned the project

On September 22, 2010, Sanger stepped down as editor-in-chief of Citizendium but said, at the time, that he is still willing to offer advice and continues to support the goals of the project.[83] Sanger reported in November 2011 that at some point he will eventually start looking for free web hosting for Citizendium.[76]

There is no evidence Sanger abandoned the project. Shortening these sentences will imply to the reader Sanger abandoned the project. QuackGuru (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that he has done anything for Citizendium, either. It's provable that he hasn't edited it in a year ([11]). As it stands, acting as if he is still supporting it is the position without evidence. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I see no proof that Sanger is supporting the project. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, the servers are still running[12] but on Wikipedia even sourced and neutrally written text can be deleted. Editors want proof. What happened to RS? The proof and the evidence is RS? The opinion of editors on Wiki-land must not replace what the sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not engage in death pacts with two-year-old sources. We don't have to say anything if there's doubt. There is never a requirement that dubious, potentially misleading, but sourced text must appear, simply because someone said two years ago that they'd try to do something at some point. Even if true, unless Sanger had already been successful, it would not actually be a notable part of Sanger's story. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Let us limit ourselves to the most important themes. If Sanger said he was going to do something but no proof exists that he did it, and nobody commented on the lack, then that is clearly not an important theme. We are free to leave out such unimportant points. Binksternet (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

WatchKnowLearn

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=581374366&oldid=581331672

Seriously, QG. You remove the tags, but don't fix the problems? That section is awful. You're adding tons of promotional language, you're repeating the same points over and over, and, frankly, don't seem to be able to edit this article at all neutrally. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=581379392&oldid=581331672
Here is the correct link to when I finished. What is the specific problem. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=581329240&oldid=581282866#Post-Citizendium
This text was in article space: "Welcome to Wikipedia. However, you've made the common mistake of creating a redundant article, namely [[{{{1}}}]] (which is redundant with the already-existing article [[{{{2}}}]]). In the future, when creating an article, please verify that there is not already an article on the same subject but which has a slightly different title."
I did not add the confusing comments that was visible to the reader. QuackGuru (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I propose this change. QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Seriously. K-12 means Kindergarden to 12th grads - approximately ages 5 to 18. 4-7 means ages 4-7. This is mutually contradictory. You can't just remove the tag without fixing the obvious problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
"Reading Bear is a project from WatchKnowLearn, a non-profit, K-12 (ages 4-7) repository of educational videos created by Sanger and Tom Pittman, and it’s supported by an anonymous benefactor who has “a long-standing goal to use technology to better the education of poor children.”"[13]
I was going by the source. The source was "K-12" and "(ages 4-7)". QuackGuru (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the source meant K-12 for WatchKnowLearn and ages 4-7 for Reading Bear. I think the current text might be original research. I propose this change. QuackGuru (talk) 17:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that source can be used for that at all, if it has that severe of an obvious error in the precise text you want to use as a source. Find a better source or delete it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading Bear

"So how did the project come about? Well, WatchKnowLearn’s benefactor saw a video of Sanger’s son, then 4 years-old, reading at a very advanced level, so he asked Sanger to create a free online reading program. “Reading Bear is a digitized version of the flashcard method I used with my son,” Sanger said. “While it is mainly intended for kids learning to read at the normal ages of 4-7, the simplicity of the program has allowed me and others to use Reading Bear with younger children."[14]

The text is clearly sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this tidbit is important. It is promotional. It does not describe the results with younger children, who are likely to be much less able to learn. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
If you think the age is not important then you should delete the other sentence about the ages for WatchKnowLearn rather than rewrite the text.
"It has of repository of educational videos for kindergarden to the 12th grade.[90]" Why you did not delete this sentence? QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Reading Bear article

"Reading Bear is a completely free website that teaches you (or your children) how to read. It uses the most basic and simple parts of reading, called phonics or phonetics, to teach them not only how to recognize words but how to read new ones without looking them up in the dictionary."[15] I propose using this source for the article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. This source can be used in the Reading Bear article but not in Sanger's biography. It says nothing about Sanger at all. Binksternet (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I really wish you'd make more of an attempt to make your text not read like an advertisement, QG. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Reading Bear was created by Sanger. This article is relevant. Please review this change that does not read like an advertisement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not the Reading Bear article. It is the Sanger biography. Let's not WP:COATRACK a product description into the biography, especially when the product description says nothing about Sanger's thoughts or goals. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

POV statement

This edit of mine was reverted by Adam Cuerden. The original edit changed a sentence regarding Citizendium: "The site has failed to attract anything like Wikipedia's audience, and its future seems grim as of 2011." I had changed the sentence to read: "The site has failed to attract a comparable audience to Wikipedia." This edit was reverted with the edit summary: "Your change is not what the source says".

The sentence is sourced to this article by Timothy Lee, and the way the sentence is written violates Wikipedia's policies—particularly WP:NPOV. Per NPOV, we must avoid stating opinions as facts, and aim to describe disputes, but not engage in them. A statement like "its future seems grim" is an opinion made by one person. We should avoid stating it so plainly in the article, as if to imply that Citizendium's future is grim as a fact. Rather than stating this so boldly in the article, I have changed it again to "Timothy B. Lee from Ars Technica noted in 2011 that Citizendium has failed to attract a large audience and that its future seems grim." This sentence is neutral—it notes that such an opinion was made, but does not assert that the opinion is true (we can't predict the future). I have also removed the part of the sentence comparing Wikipedia's audience to Citizendium's, because the source doesn't compare the two sites' audiences, but notes that Citizendium has not garnered a significant audience. I'm open to changes in wording if necessary. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.
However, speculation is allowed for sourced text. The text in the lede is neutrally written without using in-text attribution. QuackGuru (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's good that we can verify speculation, but we cannot ignore WP:NPOV when we write about speculation. We must write about other people's speculation; we shouldn't take part in speculating ourselves. You mentioned WP:ASSERT in your edit summary. An opinion, according to ASSERT, is a matter which is subject to dispute or commonly considered to be subjective. Is the statement "Citizendium's future seems grim" an opinion? Absolutely. According to the source, Sanger himself "is bullish on Citizendium's accomplishments". As an encyclopedia, we cannot simply state as a fact "Citizendium's future seems grim" -- because it isn't a fact. Rather, we should write that Timothy Lee has said that Citizendium's future seems grim. An inline citation alone does not provide for neutrality. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a statement for which there is no serious dispute. If you can show a source (from that time or later) that says the contrary, then we can talk about attribution. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's a good source. In the article, Sanger himself "is bullish on Citizendium's accomplishments". He also said that, "We haven't given up yet. We don't intend to any time in the foreseeable future. As long as there are people interested in building Citizendium, I'm going to make sure, one way or another, that the servers stay on." There's an opinion to Citizendium's future--a suggestion that they will never shut down. I disagree with your claim that attribution is not necessary if there is no serious dispute. WP:ASSERT says we have to provide in-text attribution for all opinions, regardless of how controversial they are. Mz7 (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I still don't see a serious dispute for this mundane statement.
The text Larry Sanger originally wrote was destroyed. Now WP:ASSERT has been weakened. QuackGuru (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Again, it doesn't have to be a serious dispute to compel us to provide in-text attribution. The fact that the statement is an opinion obliges us to provide in-text attribution, controversial or not. Both the previous and new versions of WP:ASSERT support this. Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are referring to the definition of fact and opinion used in the previous version of ASSERT. An example of a fact for which there is no serious dispute is "the sky is blue". An example of an opinion is "the blue sky is a gorgeous sight to see". There may not be serious debates in reliable sources for the latter statement, but it is still an opinion. Mz7 (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

2009 source: http://blogs.ft.com/tech-blog/2009/08/citizendium-founder-ready-to-jump-ship/ Citizendium is "at best a qualified success" and " increasingly in danger of being consigned to footnote status in the entry for 'Online Encyclopedias'." 2008 source: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/09/10/citizendium-is-still-doomed/ "Citizendium is still doomed" 2012, Citizendium's own blog: http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=603 "Right now there are only a small number of truly dedicated souls who continue to contribute new material on a regular basis, along with a scattering of others who jump in from time to time. [...] Even though we might have argued with some authors, at least they were present — and actively participating!"


The only other sources I could find were mere passing mentions of it in the middle of list of other websites similar to Wikipedia from the SOPA blackout ( http://www.mediaite.com/online/a-day-without-wikipedia-a-survival-guide-to-january-18-2012s-internet-blackout/ and http://www.pcworld.com/article/248294/wikipedia_alternatives_what_to_do_when_wikipedia_goes_down.html ) and this: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/387790/jimmy-wales-rants-at-holistic-healers-petitioning-wikipedia "the site continues to this day, with around 16,700 articles." (both of which appear to be slightly-edited rehashes of an article from an article going around a few years previous, e.g. http://oedb.org/ilibrarian/top-7-alternatives-to-wikipedia/ (2007).)

So, that's several more sources supporting the text as written,. Your move. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's great that you are finding sources supporting the point of view that "Citizendium is doomed". But sources don't change the fact the statements are opinions. Don't get me wrong: I personally think Citizendium has a doomed future ahead of it. But that's my opinion formed based on facts. Are you saying that it is fact that Citizendium is doomed? Or are you saying it is fact that people have said Citizendium is doomed? If it is the latter, we are obliged by the neutral point of view policy to provide in-text attribution (see WP:YESPOV). Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not what the text says. It says the " future of Citizendium looks grim". I think the sources are more than ample to say that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The sources are perhaps more than ample to say that "it is widely accepted that the future of Citizendium looks grim", but as a neutral encyclopedia, we cannot flat out say "the future of Citizendium looks grim"—that is a point of view. Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Dr.K. has moved the sentence to the Citizendium section and changed it to read: "The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future is uncertain." The size of Citizendium's audience in comparison to that of Wikipedia is an indisputable fact. I think "uncertain" is a better, more neutral description than "grim", so I won't push for an in-text attribution for that. Can we agree to retain this updated sentence? Mz7 (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Count me in, for obvious reasons. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
If the source says one thing, you can't change the source's words to change the meaning. This is a whitewash and abuse of sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
In my eyes, there are two policy-supported paths to take: either say that the future is uncertain, or say that Timothy Lee said that the future looks grim. NPOV says that we cannot state opinions in Wikipedia's voice. That's exactly what we are doing if we just flat out say "the future of Citizendium looks grim". Mz7 (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't come here to be accused of such things as "whitewashing" and "abuse" of sources for trying to impart a more encyclopedic tone to such statements as Citizendium has failed to attract anything like Wikipedia's audience, and its future seems grim as of 2011, which are obviously written in an informal, blog-like tone and refer to a "future" which has already happened and it can't be all that grim since Citizendium is still in existence; so the source and its "grim" prediction is at best stale, obsolete and outdated and in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. So you have to find a new source if you want to keep calling CZ's future "grim" and even then we don't do predictions in Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL. If you don't like my attempt at fixing this sentence it is your privilege, but keep the accusations down please, per WP:CIVIL. Thanks in advance. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but we have to follow the source presented. The word "uncertain" is WP:OR. QuackGuru (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
So is your phrase: "as of 2011" which is not found in the citation. Given that the "grim" future has not come to pass as of 2014, it isn't as grim as your now obsolete source suggests. Therefore, I removed the whole prediction about "grim futures" as based on stale predictions per WP:CRYSTAL. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I think this discussion will eventually be a moot point because more recent sources can be used to update the page. QuackGuru (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you QuackGuru. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that the body has been updated I summarised it in the lede without adding too much detail. QuackGuru (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Previous text: The site has failed to attract anything like Wikipedia's audience, and its future seems grim as of 2011.[18]
Current text: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's.[18] The site has fewer than 100 contributors.[19]
This is a note for new editors who have heard about this at ANI. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and its future seems grim.[18] I think this is a good compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, this whole exercise is about NOT using the "grim" term. The current version is good. No introduction of the "grim" term is acceptable. Why? Please see my comments above about the obsolete 2011 source. I hate repeating myself. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I tried something else but I was not sure if I added too much detail to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
If it makes you happy, I'm ok with it. I just don't want to hear that "grim" term again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

QG's current proposal appears to be to add the underlined text: The size of Citizendium's audience is much smaller than Wikipedia's and the likelihood of Citizendium overtaking Wikipedia seems fairly remote. (diff)

Such proposals, along with "future seems grim", are completely inappropriate. Either produce a source for the situation now, or say nothing. Everyone with an Internet connection knows about Wikipedia, and only a handful of people have ever heard of Citizendium, so there is no need to let readers know what some source predicted in the distant past. Just state the facts, and let the editorializing occur in the mind of the reader. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John. I fully agree with your excellent points. I'm just tired of arguing about the "grim" term and I let the other projection slip by as the lesser of two evils. But as you say, this is just another unnecessary extrapolation which should not be dictated to the reader. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking it was probably unnecessary and I immediately reverted my edit for discussion first. QuackGuru (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you QuackGuru. Let's hope this agreement sticks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
The current wording in the lead (permalink) is perfectly acceptable as it stands. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
My preference would be for "grim" plus attributed to the person who uttered the words. However, both this page and citizendium need some updated sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Book seems unnecessary

There is no specific page number to verify each claim. The book is not needed to verify so many claims. Perhaps we can use the book if we can verify a claim using a specific page number. Using a book to make so many claims seems a bit promotional. QuackGuru (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem. The issue is this edit by Geraldshields11 which adds a reference in six locations (apart from a couple of changes to commas, the edit changes nothing apart from adding the references). Regardless of whether six cites to the same book is excessive, it is not satisfactory that the wikitext for the six refs are identical—none have a page number. A minor point is that "url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wikipedia_Revolution" is not correct (see {{Cite book}}—the title can be wikilinked). Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobitt

The result of the AFD was direct/merge. Is there anything worth merging into this page? QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable sourcing too much to the post by Sanger - it's more of a set of goals than something being fulfilled. If we want to say anything, frankly, the rather horribly-narrated videos that come up when you go to the site seem better sources for how the site works at present than a writeup of Infobitt's goals. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Why Neutrality?"

This article is, in my opinion, one of my most important writings ever. Please consider adding it under my writings. --Larry Sanger (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Everipedia, blockchain, Larry Sanger

"Larry Sanger joins Everipedia to put encyclopedias on the blockchain" – Sanger has been in web news this past week. See web search. ––A Fellow Editor– 11:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Everipedia

Sanger has joined Everipedia. Someone should add that fact to this article. [16] 82.15.199.219 (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Larry Sanger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Quote from original creator of Wikipedia

"Neutrality is important because it supports independent judgment. It is only independent judgment that can be properly scientific. If you want to force the minds of your readers, then you're just being another flavor of dogmatist," Sanger wrote on his Wikipedia talk page on December 22, 2017. We can add this to the article. It is a self-published primary source. Thoughts. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2017

Revert most recent edit by Javnwekjkkji9. 2602:306:3357:BA0:D5B2:E302:AB85:EC2E (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be  Done. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia

If one goes to Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia and looks through its history, one will see that the page was created by Larry Sanger. Does anybody think that Sanger's role in creating the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia could go in this article on Sanger? Vorbee (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The edit history of all content on Wikipedia was purged in the early days. We don't know who started that article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Failed verification

Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/;[1] born July 16, 1968[failed verification]) is an American Internet project developer, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the founder of Citizendium.[2][3][4]

The sources at the end of the sentence failed to verify July 16, 1968. See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION. Also see MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." Content that fails verification does not conform to Verifiability policy. QuackGuru (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We are done here per policy. QuackGuru (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION: "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed. When using templates to tag material, it is helpful to other editors if you explain your rationale in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page." I explained my rationale based on policy in my edit summary and here on the talk page.

See MOS:CITELEAD "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies." How could failed verification content conform to Verifiability policy? Does Verifiability policy allow for failed verification content?

This edit does not address that the content fails verification. Stating "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body [...] editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" - there are enough citations in the lead, and the DOB is not particularly controversial or contentious. the cite in the early life section is sufficient, and the lead merely repeats that date"[17] does not address that the content fails verification. The claim "should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead" suggests the citation is redundant but when other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim it can't be redundant. If the citation was redundant then another citation in the first sentence would also verify the claim. The claim "there are enough citations in the lead" does not mean other citations at the end of the sentence verify the claim. Other citations at the end of the sentence do not verify the claim. I can't think of any policy based argument for content to fail verification. The easiest way to resolve the issue would be to restore the non-redundant citation. QuackGuru (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Co-founder dispute

"best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" That's patently nonsense. He is the co-founder. The weasel words are nonsensical. For a controversial article citations definitely belong in the lede. Replacing sourced content with unsourced or not verifiable content confirms citations are best for the lede for this article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "Best known for" is not in of itself a weasel word (see WP:BKFIP, etc.), and I do not dispute that he is in fact the co-founder of Wikipedia (nor does anybody other than Jimbo, if I'm not mistaken.) I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I'm trying to streamline the lead to be less cluttered and more encyclopedic (with the ultimate aim of taking this to WP:FAC, a process Sanger founded). You're right that WP:LEADCITE doesn't outright prohibit citations in the lead, but they're unnecessary in this article IMO, and LEADCITE notes that Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I left the citations for stuff like his pronunciation which are not covered in the lead, but I don't think the rest are necessary, given that Sanger isn't that controversial outside of Wikipedia, and I attempted to address intra-Wikipedia controversy in the lead. My statements were only reworded versions of those already in the lead, which should have already been in the body. here is my version of the lead for reference when consensus wants to develop. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The citation does not verify "best known for being". The wording does dispute whether Sanger is the co-founder. Please do not add content that is not verifiable. When an editor adds content that fails verification that means citations should stay in the lede. Please don't bring up the co-founder dispute to Wikipedia articles. Please don't try to gain consensus for disputing Sanger is the co-founder. QuackGuru (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree that "best known for" casts doubt onto his being the co-founder, as it's not something to the effect of "who claims to be", "alleged", etc. However, you do have a point that it might be otherwise problematic with verification. Would you be willing to accept the rest of my work on the lead if I reword it to remove that phrase? If not I can ask for a third opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You have shown citations are needed. Please do not remove citations from this lede, especially when you are replacing sourced content with misleading and bias content against a living person. I can't easily check verification without the citations remaining in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 07:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Generally speaking if something is in the lead it should already be in the body. You can check for verification there, therefore lead citations are generally an unnecessary clutter. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
See "In addition to his work on Wikipedia..." The source that was close by did not verify this part. QuackGuru (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
That is a transition in prose that does not need a citation per WP:SKYBLUE, IMO. I see we are at a bit of an impasse here, so I have sought a third opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
See again "In addition to his work on Wikipedia..." The source that was close by did not verify this part. You did not acknowledge you added unsourced content. There is a lot more unsourced new content. See "Interested in online learning early on...". No source verifies this claim.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_underkill#Citations_in_the_lead
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_most_sentences_should_be_cited
How come you are replacing sourced content with content that is not verifiable with any source? I can't check for verification anywhere when you are adding new content without a citation. Do you agree you won't add new content that is unsourced? QuackGuru (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I was only trying to reword content that was already in the body, I apologize if I inadvertently introduced anything new. Let's see how the third opinion goes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The more I look the more problems I found. See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia..." That is bias and misleading. There was an inaccurate statement about child pornography added to the lede. That was disgusting.
You added new content. That was not done inadvertently. Above you wrote "That is a transition in prose that does not need a citation per WP:SKYBLUE, IMO." That confirms it was not done inadvertently. You did not provide verification for the new content. What source verifies the new content or what it per WP:SKYBLUE? Please address the question. Do you agree you won't add new content that is unsourced? QuackGuru (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The lengths to which you have gone to "prove" that I did such actions deliberately lead me to longer be able to assume the assumption of good faith on your part. Per Bastun I have attempted to make a compromise in the lead, changing only the first sentences. If you see any necessary changes in formatting feel free to make them yourself, but please do not revert or undo this change. Please bring up any lingering big issues on this talk page, the edit-warring noticeboard, or the dispute resolution noticeboard.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
What an odd dispute - "best known as co-founder of Wikipedia" is a) accurate, and b) in no way a challenge to the fact that he co-founded Wikipedia. Odd edit summaries, too - what BLP was "re-inserted" and fixed by you removing a space from a reference name? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
The source in the lede does not verify "best known for being" or "best known as". This strengths the need for citations in the lede when verification is not being presented. QuackGuru (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to rehash the arguments already made. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Please provide verification using the citations in the lede to support your arguments. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've declined QuackGuru's full protection request. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Airplaneman, do you think contacting the WMF would help? This should not happening on this article given the high profile nature. QuackGuru (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, which is not the purview of the WMF. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
See this diff. He is not currently an "American epistemologist". Please read the archives. This was discussed before. The part "best known for being" not supported by the citations in the body. He may be *best known* for being a critic of Wikipedia. The part "educational websites such as" is misleading. The other websites are not described as educational websites. The part "such as" does not make much sense. Given this is a live article the changes should not stay in the article. The lede says "He is the former editor-in-chief of Nupedia,[9]" In September 2017, it was announced that Sanger had joined Everipedia as chief information officer.[20][21] Adding Nupedia and Everipedia to the first paragraph is duplication. The citation did not verify Everipedia in the first paragraph. QuackGuru (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

A request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) since a third opinion was given by Bastun after the filing of that request. Bastun's opinion can either be seen as a Third Opinion or a third editor entering the dispute (and Third Opinions are only available in disputes between exactly two editors). If addition moderated content dispute resolution is desired, consider making a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or filing a Request for Comments after, in either case, carefully reading the instructions there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

  • An edit-war discussion is underway regarding the contents of this discussion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I became aware of this page due to its listing on WP:3O. I don't want to wade into the edit war dispute; I am not planning to touch the article in any way, but from a content dispute perspective, I was hoping that perhaps another voice might help add a little clarity. My opinion is that I agree with Bastun; I certainly did not read the lead as somehow lessening Mr. Sanger's status as co-founder of Wikipedia. In fact, we state so clearly in Wikipedia's voice, not attributed to a third party ("so-and-so source claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia"). We use this construct all the time: for example, Cary Elwes is best known for his roles as Westley in The Princess Bride, Robin Hood in Robin Hood: Men in Tights. In my personal opinion, this wording does not imply in the least that there is any doubt that he appeared in both movies as the respective characters, but only that he is potentially known for other, ostensibly lesser accomplishments as well. There certainly is no disrespect intended by saying so, and I don't think we are doing Mr. Sanger a disservice by stating it in those terms. I suppose you could argue that we are merely assuming that he is "best known" for that particular accomplishment, but it is certainly a common way of saying "this is what Wikipedia thinks his most important accomplishment is". One could possibly consider that WP:OR, but then again, if we were to simply state "Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia" as the first sentence of the lead, I think we are making the exact same statement. All the "best known for" does in this instance is clarify that there are other things he might also be known for that aren't mentioned in the first sentence. I hope this helps.
    For what it's worth, Googling "Larry Sanger" "wikipedia" "co-founder" yields about 4 times the results that "Larry Sanger" "wikipedia" "critic" does. Again, this is hardly statistically valid, but it's at least nominal verification that we aren't completely out in left field. In fact, most of the spot-checking I did when I ran the second query had Mr. Sanger being introduced, often in the title of the article, as "Co-Founder Larry Sanger". CThomas3 (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

He is not currently an epistemologist. The last sentence of the first paragraph covers the epistemologist part. Sanger complained about similar content in the first sentence way back in 2008. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia, Citizendium, and Everipedia." is also problematic. They are not educational websites. He founded Citizendium. This was deleted. The previous wording was far better. QuackGuru (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The lede is in very poor shape, especially the first sentence. There is way too many problems to list. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Best known for

Can we focus on diff which adds "best known for being the co-founder of Wikipedia" to the lead. I know #Co-founder dispute deals with the topic, but that section is a lost cause as it tries to cover other points as well, and it got off to a bad start with QG's hard-to-understand claims about weasel words and a suggestion that "best known for" somehow casts doubt on whether "co-founder" is correct (QG: both those points are wrong).

Problems:

  1. The lead should be a summary of what is in the article, and the article does not say anything about "best known".
  2. While editors on this page might regard Sanger as best known for his role in Wikipedia, I doubt whether more than a tiny number of editors, and almost none of Wikipedia's readers, would recognize Sanger's name.
  3. What does "best known" add to the article? Just assert that he co-founded Wikipedia and leave readers to decide whether that is significant.
  4. Assertions must be verifiable, and particularly must be referenced when challenged. The exceptions are WP:CALC which does not apply, and WP:BLUESKY mentioned above. BLUESKY is an essay which does not overrule the WP:BURDEN policy. BLUESKY states that not everything needs a citation, which is reasonable. However, the "best known" claim is an editor's opinion which may not be shared by people familiar with Sanger's other work.

I think "best known for" was first added on 27 June 2019—I don't remember seeing it in this article before. Why should it be kept? Assertions are never kept on the basis of original research using Google or anything else. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with whatever consensus we develop with regards to the "best known for" phrase, provided that it's civil and not edit-warring (speaking of which, I'll hold back on editing the lead myself until the WP:ANEW thread is dealt with). I would tend to support its inclusion if we can find a source to support it. If we can't, I'll see how else I can reword it without the phrase; "Lawrence Mark Sanger ... is an American epistemologist and internet project developer who co-founded Wikipedia."? That could work if we can't find a source for "best-known", but it just doesn't seem as engaging to me. (Then again, Wikipedia's not an action novel, so we shouldn't be sacrificing truth and verifiability for pizzazz.) EDIT: How about "Lawrence Mark Sanger ... is an American epistemologist and internet project developer. Along with Jimmy Wales he co-founded the online encyclopedia Wikipedia."? It would also make who the other co-founder was clearer. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    • There is no reason to mention Wales in the lead. This is an article about Sanger and what he did, and the lead should focus on that. Also, mentioning Wales introduces the founder drama, but the lead should not focus on that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That's fair enough. I think there should be a section on the founder drama (and there already is under "Origins of Wikipedia" if I'm not mistaken), but there's no reason to bring it up in the lead, especially if this is to become an FAC as I would like it to be someday. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No broad consensus for mass changes

Mass changes were made and almost all the citations were removed from the lede. Undoing years of consensus requires a RfC to gain broad support for such changes IMO. The lede was 4 solid paragraphs. 4 smaller paragraphs overall is not much content. The previous wording in the lede was well written and flowed better. For example, "Since his departure from Wikipedia he has been critical of the project, arguing that despite its merits Wikipedia lacks credibility due to a lack of respect for expertise and authority." This is not neutrally written. See "Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002, and has since been critical of the project.[15][16] He states that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility due to, among other things, a lack of respect for expertise.[17]" This is better written without the use of the word "arguing". There are a lot more problems with the changes to the lede. See "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia..." That is more bias content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Most of the changes seem fine to me and there is little difference between the two sentences you quote - I'm not seeing any bias in either. I don't see a problem with "arguing." It means "to advance an argument", in this context. Maybe also have a read of WP:OWN? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
See WP:SAID. The word "states" is neutral. I disagree with replacing sourced content with misleading content while also removing the citations to verify each claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
No RfC is required. John M Wolfson's changes are reasonable and give a more readable lead to the article. See WP:LEADCITE - everything there is referenced later on in the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
The lede was less readable and deleted a lot of good content. Undoing over a decade of consensus requires broad consensus.
See MOS:CITELEAD: "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." Misleading content was not supported by the body. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with Bastun here. Everything in the lead is cited in the body except for the pronunciation, whose citation I kept. Per LEADCITE, citations in the lead that are repeated in the body are unnecessary, and it is standard practice in featured articles to not have them. If there's anything that is particularly controversial in the new lead such that it requires citation feel free to add one, but please stop reverting the changes in their entirety. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't verify new content that is not in the body. For example, "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college,.." I could not verify it because there was no citation. The previous wording was far better and cited. If you started a RfC that would help revolve things. QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I specifically left a comment in the source code noting where in the body you could find it. I don't think an RfC is necessary, I think this talk page is sufficient. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I know. "Described in "Early life and education" section in body" did not verify the claim. I can't find any citation to verify the poorly written content. The readers will have a tougher time trying to verify content that may or may not be verifiable. This discussion shows citations are useful in the lede of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily, what it shows right now is that you think that lead citations are necessary or even desirable. The comment was sufficient (and I would argue more than enough) to direct where in the body a reader could verify the claim summarized in the lead. I feel like I've said all I've needed to say, so I'll recuse myself from this discussion for now and let others weigh in, and I suggest you do the same. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I can't verify misleading content or worse failed verification content, especially when there is no citations. You still have not verified the claim. If a RfC is started I can show even more problems. Content I add is challenged all the time on other articles. I have no problem providing verification. QuackGuru (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not adding new content, nor is the lead generally the place to add new content. I'm bringing the lead closer to FA standards by making it a summary of the body rather than a place where new content is introduced and cited. With all due respect, you seem to misunderstand that the lead is not (merely) an introduction to the subject but a summary of the article's body. Therefore, content that's not in the body generally shouldn't be put in the lead and the lead therefore generally doesn't need citations. The lead as I have most recently made it does not IMO contain anything so controversial as to circumvent this, and if it did you could just add the citations as they come without reverting the entirety of the change. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You rewrote over well written content. Sanger's role was downplayed with the rewritten content. A lot of the content added to the lede I could not verify. The content was oversimplified and vague. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Maybe you could have belter luck at the simple version of this article. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
He rewrote content, more clearly. Sanger's role was not downplayed with the more clear content. The content read like that of many other good and featured articles, being a summary of the article. Slow growth of Nupedia? Not relevant for the lead. There is no need for thinly veiled personal attacks. WP:CITELEAD is clear "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." A bio about Larry Sanger is not complex. It's also not especially "current" and no longer controversial. Nobody is "undoing years of consensus" and to suggest they are is... well, seriously, read WP:OWN. Reverting. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "Slow growth of Nupedia? Not relevant for the lead." But you restored the part about "Slow progress of Nupedia." There is disputed content I mentioned above that is not verifiable. Content was challenged but verification was not provided. Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored. Vague content is not a clearer version. QuackGuru (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You've been Reverted. Let's Discuss, per WP:BRD, and not just re-revert? What I meant above was the extra detail about Nupedia was not relevant for the lead. "Disappointed in the slow progress of Nupedia he suggested a wiki to solicit and receive articles to put through Nupedia's peer-review process, which led to the development and launch of Wikipedia in 2001." - 1.5 lines - is clear, concise, and an excellent summary of the later content. Certainly compared to the 2 lines it replaced. "Poorly written content without a clear consensus should not be restored." Agreed. It isn't John M Wolfson's content that's poorly written, though, and there is nothing "vague" about it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version. All I see above is an argument about verification and vague claims concerning "more clearly". What is more clear? You reverted to a version with "internet encyclopedia Wikipedia" in the first sentence. Do you really think someone reading this article would need that description? Regardless, it's standard to leave linked names on the understanding that the perplexed reader can click the link if they need clarification. Above you say "Slow growth of Nupedia" is not relevant for the lead, yet your revision includes "slow progress of Nupedia". The new version has "He began to be distanced" which is fluff for the lead, and is a total mistatement of the article which says "Sanger began to distance himself from it". Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Rather than have one longer line it has 2 shorter lines. The part "Initially it was a complementary project" shows at the very beginning it was not intended to replace Nupedia. Not only this version is vague it is poorly written. For example, see "He founded Citizendium in 2006 to rival Wikipedia." That is patently nonsense. Sanger did not start another encyclopedia to "rival" Wikipedia. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia,..." That is more false information. Those are not educational websites. "He currently serves as Chief Information Officer of Everipedia." is not accurate. There is no date and we don't know if he is "currently" serving as CIO. The previous version has the correct date in "December" in the lede and body. The current version has false information when it was announced. "He began to be distanced from the community of Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is more false information. It claims he distanced himself from the community. This is more vague and misleading content. "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." This seems like a SYN violation or is OR research. It is not supported by the body that he joined Neupdia because he had an interest in using the internet for education during college. "Outside of the internet Sanger's interests have been focused mainly on philosophy,..." This is more false information. I can't find anywhere in the body where it supports he focused "mainly" on philosophy outside of his interest in the internet. It is misleading to claim he "suggested" a wiki when he did propose a wiki. This is casting doubt on Sanger co-founding Wikipedia. The lede is misrepresenting sources and is clearly bias. QuackGuru (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit does not fix the problems. "He began to distance himself from Wikipedia, however, and left the project in 2002." That is still misleading because it is vague. QuackGuru (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Johnuniq et al., the old lead was not what a lead is supposed to be on a Wikipedia article. The lead is not an "introduction" to the topic so much as it's a summary of the contents of the article's body. As a summary, it is supposed to be written more generally than the body, which is where the whole "vague" business comes into play. No new content is supposed to be present in the lead, and therefore there aren't supposed to be (that many) citations; indeed, looking through the past couple of TFA's it is shown that it is standard practice for featured articles to have rather few citations in their leads, or even none at all. Any worthwhile content in the lead I moved to the body. My proposed changes are only a start, and I am more than open to changes in wording to make it less "vague" while still being more general, but I do not care for being reverted at all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • You did not address the problems. There is misleading and bias content in the lede that is not being fixed. This is strange wording. This is misleading to claim "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia." The way to fix it is to go back to the version where there is no perceived problems. You wrote, "My proposed changes are only a start,..." Articlespace is not for a start. There is a problem with removing the citations. I tried to verify some of the content but I eventually came to the conclusion that is not verifiable with any source in the body. This shows that for this article citations are important for the lede. There is no reason I can think of to keep misleading content in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Your assertion that Articlespace is not for a start runs aground WP:BOLD and WP:FINISH. I perceive the problem of redundancy and irrelevant little materials such as "He grew up in Anchorage, Alaska" in the old lead, so the the version where there is no perceived problems doesn't exist, and even if it did reverting would only exacerbate the edit war and not be constructive, so the proper thing to do is to discuss the lead and do incremental changes as we are doing now. That said, I'm open to changing the lead incrementally per your suggestions. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you ignore BRD, revert while there's discussion ongoing, then issue me a templated warning?! Get real. You do not own this article, stop trying to act like its gatekeeper. And consider this your own edit-warring notice. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please try focus on the issues rather than comment on the contributor. Are you going to address the concerns? QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The "concerns" you list are entirely your own opinion, and ones I do not agree with. Do you know how many bio articles have a formula of words such as "X is currently" or "X is the"? Literally thousands. But this one shouldn't? /facepalm BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See "In December 2017, it was announced that Sanger had joined Everipedia as chief information officer.[19][20]" That is accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you're actually claiming CZ was not intended as a rival to WP?! O rly?! Ok, sorry, there's no way to take you seriously as an unbiased editor now. There is no "problematic content" - the "problem", such as it is, appears to be that it was not written by you, and that's your objection. Can you please stop with your pointy edits, such as adding an OR tag to "He grew disillusioned with Wikipedia" - that's very much evident from reading the body of the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

See "In October 2006, Sanger started a rival online encyclopedia to Wikipedia, Citizendium.[18]" He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival". QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
He started "a rival" online encyclopedia to Wikipedia...". not "to rival". With all due respect, are you fucking kidding me? Just ... wow. Without prejudice to anything else you've said, that particular example is a textbook example of splitting hairs and is starting to compromise my assumption of good faith on your part. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Seven cites for CZ being set up as a rival to WP - many in Sanger's voice. Ironically, one of the reasons Sanger cites for becoming disillusioned with WP was the trolls... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
It is poorly written the way it is now. I disagree with accurate content being replaced with vague or misleading content. See 'Lack of consensus for current version and issues are not being addressed' below. QuackGuru (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of available admins or other editors?

changing my nick to stirring spoon  Dlohcierekim (talk)

See "Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but the Fram affair has me questioning whether the WMF would back me or sack me for doing my job if someone complained to them. There's a chill in the air, and the wind is blowing from San Francisco."[18]

See "See above thread."[19]

See Edit war report unattended to after a day and a half[20]

@JosephABernstein: funny things are happening to the Larry Sanger article and it may be a result of a shortage of admins being able to deal with the problems.

See "His relationship to Wikipedia has been rocky; he has attempted to found several websites to rival Wikipedia and controversially accused the Wikimedia Foundation of hosting child pornography in 2010, while Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has attempted to downplay and diminish Sanger's contributions to the early history of the site."[21] @Dlohcierekim: what do you think? QuackGuru (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I don't think I like you drawing me into a situation with which I'm not familiar. I don't think I like you quoting me out of context, particularly in regards to my disquietude and angst over the Fram affair. I acknowledge that we are short handed now because of all the protest resignations-- many came form some of our best users. I think you might be shit-stirring, and using me as the spoon. I don't like that at all. I see no relevance in your dragging me into what looks like a minefield. Don't know anything about this subject. I have no skills at all in dispute resolution. Why Am I here. Don't answer that-- rhetorical. Good day.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I have nooooo idea what relevance any of the above has to improving this article? Or even what it's about... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
see my comment above.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you think anything is wrong with this article such as the historical revisionism I mentioned or this is not your area of expertise? QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
As I stated before, No idea. Why you have chosen to drag me into this, I do not know. There are hundreds of admins. And you should carry your concerns to the notice board of your choice. I made it easy. I noticed you about this on AN, Make your arguments there.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
There are already is a thread at AN and I made my arguments and you wrote "See above thread."[22]. I did see thread above. QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@JosephABernstein: for your next piece you can mention the Fram ban effect and this article. Look around the talk page. Sourced content is being replaced with unsourced and bias content. This was the response. There are continued problems that are being ignored or not fixed. It is odd the citations are being deleted from the lede and then replaced with the content that is misleading or vague. It is even more odd admins are dong nothing about it. For example, "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000."[23] No, that is patently untrue. Sanger did not join Nupedia because of his interest in the Interest. This is historical revisionism. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bias. You keep using the phrase "bias content". The actual phrase is "biased content" - not "bias content." I don't know how familiar you are with how WP actually works - though I see you're familiar with warning templates, even if not when it's inappropriate to use them - but admins generally won't involve themselves in content disputes. The tree you are barking up is the wrong one. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
The content I mentioned above as historical revisionism do you think it is accurate or inaccurate? QuackGuru (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Lack of consensus for current version and issues are not being addressed

See "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version. All I see above is an argument about verification and vague claims concerning "more clearly". What is more clear? You reverted to a version with "internet encyclopedia Wikipedia" in the first sentence. Do you really think someone reading this article would need that description? Regardless, it's standard to leave linked names on the understanding that the perplexed reader can click the link if they need clarification. Above you say "Slow growth of Nupedia" is not relevant for the lead, yet your revision includes "slow progress of Nupedia". The new version has "He began to be distanced" which is fluff for the lead, and is a total mistatement of the article which says "Sanger began to distance himself from it"."[24] - previous comment by User:Johnuniq on 10:12, 1 July 2019

There was no reply to this previous comment by User:Johnuniq. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version when no perceived issues with the previous version where identified. Again, please identify a perceived problem with the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

  1. "He founded Citizendium in 2006 to rival Wikipedia." This is too vague. Previous content: "In October 2006, Sanger started a rival online encyclopedia to Wikipedia, Citizendium.[18]" This is accurate and more precise.
  2. "He has also worked on other online educational websites such as Nupedia,..." That is more false information. Those are not educational websites.
  3. "He currently serves as Chief Information Officer of Everipedia." is not accurate. There is no date for when it was announced him serving as CIO. The previous version has the correct date in "December" in the lede and body. The current version has false information when it was announced.
  4. "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." This seems like a SYN violation or is OR research. It is not supported by the body that he joined Nupedia because he had an interest in using the internet for education during college.
  5. The word "arguing" and "argued"is not neutral as the words "states" or stated".
  6. "Outside of the internet Sanger's interests have been focused mainly on philosophy,..." This is more false information. I can't find anywhere in the body where it supports he focused "mainly" on philosophy outside of his interest in the internet."
  7. "Born in Paris and brought up in Oxfordshire, Watson attended the Dragon School...". Emma Watson is a featured article with citations in the lede. This shows that quality articles do have citations in the lede.

The issues have not been fully addressed. This shows there is a lack of consensus for the current version. Sourced content in the lede was replaced with problematic unsourced content. This shows citations in the lede do benefit this article. When I can't verify the claims how are our readers going to be able to verify the claims in the lede for the rewritten content? The last stable version is on 04:29, 1 July 2019. The current lede is too vague and therefore less accurate than the previous version. QuackGuru (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

1) There is nothing vague about it. It is just as accurate as your wording. But feel free to add "October."
2) "False information" is as hyperbolic as "fake news"
3) You're just being pedantic... encyclopedias are, by their nature, educational.
4) Likewise. Also, previously addressed here.
5) I guess it just possibly might read that way? But only if you were actively trying to find fault with absolutely every change that you hadn't inserted.
6) You are incorrect. There is nothing non-neutral about "arguing" and "argued" - it meand to advance a position. Also, previoulsy addressed here.
7) Again with the hyperbolic "false information."
8) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Once again, you're displaying classic ownership issues. Even if "issues" had not been addressed (several already were but you didn't like the answers), that does not show a lack of consensus for the current version. The current lede reads better than the previous version and the citations are all there in the body. Thanks for the template discretionary sanctions BLP warning template on my talk page, but I'm already aware of the BLP policy. That didn't look WP:POINTY at all... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Please provide verification for the new content. For example, see "Developing an interest in using the internet for education during college, he joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000." That is false information. That's a classic WP:SYN violation. He did not join Nupedia because of his interest in the Internet during college. I have cited problems with the current version. The new content is challenged and verification has not been provided.
Please directly respond to this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
QG, if there are so many issues you are free to fix them yourself so long as you don't put citations in the lead or undo all of my work. As such, there's no need for you to prolong this on the talk page. (FWIW, Johnuniq has expressed concerns with the new lead that have to an extent been fixed, and nobody else has expressed any, not even the other editors who have subsequently edited the page. With all due respect, I suggest you read WP:IDHT and put the stick down.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you directly respond to the problems raised above in this thread such as acknowledging there is a problem or providing verification for the disputed content.
See in part: "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version."[25] That's more than expressing concerns with the new content added to the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Really? For starters, the concept of "QG's version" being a thing. This is WP - the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Nobody owns them, not matter how much they want to. Our articles have lead paragraphs. For some reason, we spell it lede. Lede paragraphs are supposed to be a summary of the article content. That means "He currently serves as CIO of Everipedia" is entirely suitable and correct to use in the lede - and people can read further detail later, in the appropriate place, with citations, that he started in September 2017. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

QG might be their own worst enemy with too many edits and too many points raised. However, that may be due to the brush-off shown on this page. QG is very literal: by "false information", QG means information that is false—it's not a dig about fake news. I'm not saying that everything QG has proposed is optimum, but I don't see significant serious engagement. For example, the article Wikipedia mentions "education" only in a negative context, so QG's point 2 is literally correct—see educational website for what that term means. Repeated mentions of ownership are also just a deflection from the issues. It would be better to focus on arguments regarding specific content. Above I wrote "Please identify a perceived problem with QG's version" where the response started by explaining elementary concepts such as WP:LEAD—please assume everyone here knows the basics and focus on the actual points. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Johnuniq I didn't like that QG was undoing my changes in their entirety and didn't (and still don't, but it's a moot point now) think it was warranted. In addition, I don't think that anything in the lead is controversial enough to warrant citations. I agree that QG is his/her own worst enemy with rambling and subpar conduct (trying to get this protected, dragging random people into it, somehow connecting this with WP:FRAM, etc.). To answer your question succinctly, there wasn't anything wrong with QG's version, but the prose was clunky and included irrelevant details and I attempted to make the lead better, which I think for the most part I succeeded in doing. I'd be happy to discuss further changes to make the lead even better, but I think the best thing to do is to simply make them unless they completely undo my work. Then we can discuss the changes as they happen, and if I feel like the changes aren't warranted or that other changes are better we can discuss if there's an edit, per bold, revert, discuss. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with John M Wolfson - largely I became involved because in my opinion, the new text was very readable and succinct and - in the main - articles don't have or need citations in the lede unless there's something really controversial being discussed. But the changes were just being wholesale reverted on the most pedantic of points. Sorry, but that did really smack of ownership. If QG wasn't being engaged with, maybe that's because many of their arguments were essentially a repeat of "my version was better, the new version is terrible." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Problematic

First section below lead, second sentence since 5 Nov 2013 -- "His father was a marine biologist and his mother took care of the children." The reference says "His father was a seabird biologist; his mother took care of the children." Anyone else see this as beyond close paraphrasing? Moriori (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm (showing my age) reminded of a Newhart episode where Bob is sued for plagiarism and goes to court. The judge asks Bob (paraphrasing) "How do you join two pieced of wood to make a thingummy?" "Well, you place your nail and hit it with a hammer." "Same question, plaintiff..." "Well - you place your nail and hit it with a hammer." There are only so many ways to describe facts. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_5&oldid=1149826748"