Talk:Citizendium/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Excessive detail

Isn't this article a bit excessive for a project which is barely open to the public? I would have thought a single paragraph, or at most a screenful, would be more appropriate. If this was any other project than a competitor/fork of Wikipedia, would we give it as much coverage? It only passes WP:WEB because it has gotten some press publicity, but there's nothing there to see yet, unless you are one of the few accepted as a contributor.-gadfium 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I kind of sympathize with these comments, because the project should be open to the public so people can see what's going on. I think Larry is miscalculating CZ's own interest by keeping everything under wraps. But sooner or later the project will open up. As for the level of detail, I agree that we should boil things down once the project really gets going. For now, though, the detail is of interest to show the development of the project in its early stages. Casey Abell 13:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a person many of us interacted intensely with. It is a project in direct competition with us. Consequently we have intense interest in it. Whether the public is as interested as we are is doubtful. Fred Bauder 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It was noted in some circles that Citizendium would simply fail to bet Wikipedia, simply because of its hard-to-pronounce name alone. That said, I think that the detail is fine, but eventually it'll probably be trimmed down. Once Citizendium opens up, more info will be available, and older info should be summarized and made concise. As for its notability, it's probably so long because everyone feels strongly about it, either way. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to write about every tiny thing that is going on? How is this relevant? Someone leaving the project is hardly noteworthy, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 20:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This conflict between credentialed experts (Tal and Sanger both have Ph.D.'s) is exactly the type of issue which the project may face regularly. Experts will have the right to approve articles and decide content disputes, so conflicts between them are obviously important to CZ. I omitted the more personal language between the two, but the conflict issue itself is of great relevance to the project. Casey Abell 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Tal claims on her blog that she was a member of the CZ Executive Committee, which would make her departure very notable by any standard. Haven't been able to find any corroboration, though. Sarah Tuttle's list on the CZ blog doesn't include Tal. So I can't include her claim in the article. Casey Abell 23:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

She was on Exec. Sarah Tuttle's blog entry only reflects people on exec who gave permission to be mentioned in on the site at the time that she wrote it. There were 17 original Executive Board members (including Dr. Tal and myself) when the Executive Board was established on Nov. 7th, 2006. Dr. Tal quit, and then two people were added, bringing us to 18 currently (I think). --ZachPruckowski 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate all the effort that's gone in, but I also feel that the level of detail is far too high in this article, to the extent that the usefulness of the article is impacted negatively. For example, the incident with Tal really merits only a sentence, not several paragraphs. In general, there's too many quotes: I count 15 pairs of the big fancy quote templates (is there any other Wikipedia article with such a high quote density?) As Fred says, we're obviously interested in the blow-by-blow details of Citizendium's development, and perhaps we should have an article somewhere in Wikipedia: space where we can keep track of it, but it doesn't make for that great a mainspace encyclopedia article. Just my opinion... — Matt Crypto 18:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The main article (exclusive of footnotes and links) has about 4400 words, which is almost exactly the same as the "Clarification" section of this talk page. The discussion of one issue in the article - the "co-founder" dispute - has generated as many words as the article itself, and has included significant comments from Larry Sanger and Jimbo Wales. I really don't think the main article is at all overly detailed compared to the "Clarification" section devoted to just one point in the article.

Yes, some will say that comparing talk pages to articles is apples and oranges, and I agree to some extent. I also agree that the article should get boiled down once CZ is publicly launched and running. Even after the boil-down, though, I think the article should quote extensively, with careful cites, to support its assertions. This is an article about a project which, according to the first sentence of its first press release, will "attempt to unseat" Wikipedia. Under these circumstances, Wikipedia should support the assertions in its Citizendium article with many quotes and exact cites. Wikipedia will be watched and has been watched carefully to see how it treats a self-proclaimed competitor.

On the specific issue of the Tal-Sanger dispute, I honestly think this is one of the more important sections of the article. Credential-holders like Tal and Sanger (both have Ph.D.'s) will have great authority on CZ, far beyond what WP editors are used to. Indeed, this is the crucial difference between CZ and WP, as Larry has discussed in detail. Credentialed people will have the power to decide content disputes and to select approved versions of articles that will be displayed as the default to users of the site. The Sarah Tuttle quote in the article outlines some possible issues that may arise from this structure, and the Tal-Sanger dispute was an interesting example of such issues. Tal also claimed to be a member of the CZ executive committee, although I haven't been able to verify this claim. Casey Abell 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, comparing talk pages to articles is irrelevant. The problem is that making extensive use of direct quotes makes the article verbose and less useful, and serves no useful purpose. We rarely need to cite a source by reproducing the source -- a link to the source will do just as well. I propose that we remove all, or nearly all, of the direct quotes, and summarise them instead. — Matt Crypto 08:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the comparison between article and talk page isn't irrelevant. The section of this talk page about the co-founder issue is measurably more verbose than any section of the main article. As for direct quotes, it seems like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we don't quote, some will complain that we're not citing accurately but instead injecting POV by paraphrasing. If we do quote, some will complain about verbosity. I'd rather risk the verbosity complaint than the POV accusation. This is particularly important in articles which involve criticism of Wikipedia itself, where the slightest hint of POV-pushing should be avoided. For instance, the Criticism of Wikipedia article benefits greatly from extensive quotes giving the exact words of various critics. Casey Abell 15:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know this is going to come across as grumpy, so please forgive me in advance: "The section of this talk page about the co-founder issue is measurably more verbose than any section of the main article"...what does that have to do with anything? The talk page isn't the encyclopedia article. They're entirely different documents with entirely different purposes. The length of a section of a talk page has no relation to what makes a useful size for an encyclopedia article, any more than the length of the history, or the number of incoming links, or the size of War and Peace... Righty, and again, apologies for the grumpiness. Moving on, your argument in favour of full quotes seems to be based on fear of complaints about POV issues if we paraphrase. I understand your concern, but to me a better question seems to be "can we paraphrase without injecting POV?", not "will people complain if we paraphrase?". And I see no reason why we cannot paraphrase and be neutral in doing so. Therefore, it seems to be a choice between improving the readability of the article and having people complain spuriously about neutrality, or not improving the article and having people complain about the verbosity rather than neutrality. To me, it seems we should chose the former. — Matt Crypto 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem with grumpiness. I suppose other people's writing always seem more verbose than your own or my own. Which was exactly the point I was trying to make, and which I believe is not so hard to understand. On the quote issue, I must respectfully disagree. For many months now we've been hammered about Wikipedia's lack of credibility and authority — not least by Citizendium conributors themselves. Some of the complaints are "spurious", to use your word. Others are all too accurate. It seems that including the quotes is a small price to pay to improve the article's credibility — if any price is being paid at all. Many of the quotes — from Sarah Tuttle, Phil Wardle, David Marshall, Larry Sanger, Kali Tal and Charles Leadbetter, for instance — strike me as some of the most interesting and well-phrased material in the article. Far from harming the article's readability, they improve it greatly, in my opinion. Finally, I can only fall back on the hard numbers. The Citizendium article is 37K in length, including footnotes and external links. Such a length hardly places the article among the longest in Wikipedia, or anywhere close. It certainly doesn't seem like a case crying out for emergency cuts. Casey Abell 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Matt makes a quite reasonable point. Just think how silly this entry will look if Citizendium comes to naught--a very real possibility. What's ironic is that the article itself is so much of what Larry abhors: huge amounts of detail and energy spent on some obscure techie-thing that is almost nonexistant and far less important than real encyclopedic topics with anemic Wikipedia entries. And yet, here he is promoting just the thing he's hoping to cure. Perhaps, some day, Citizendium will be something important, until then it's just another project like the thousands one can find on Sourceforge. Elijahmeeks 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While the concept behind this project is interesting, the daily blow-by-blow of the pilot phase is grossly excessive for an encyclopedia article. This needs to be seriously pruned to make it readable past the first section. Rossami (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's interview on Wikipedia Weekly

...has a really in depth interview on Wikipedia Weekly on a special edition. lots of good info there. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

"Sanger was the first employee Jimmy Wales assigned to work on Wikipedia"--is that how Wikipedia has now decided to describe me? According to Wikipedia's own first three press releases, until 2004--including two press releases that I didn't have anything at all to do with--I was billed as a founder of Wikipedia. See:

• Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2002
• Wikipedia:Press releases/January 2003
• Wikipedia:Press releases/February 2004

Also, until 2004 or 2005, all of the articles about me, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and even Jimmy gave me billing as co-founder of Wikipedia. Just thought it might be useful to point this out for those who weren't aware of it.

--Larry Sanger 08:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clear the co-founder thing was general consensus until 2004 or so, when Jimmy started an attempt to usurp the founder honours for himself alone. But he can't change the history. It's not suddenly non-NPOV to call Larry a co-founder just because Jimmy disputes it now. The term "co-founder" was recently removed from this article at the instigation of Jimmy on IRC. I'm restoring it; Jimmy or others who agree with him should make their case here before reverting. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In his letter of resignation, Sanger didn't call himself cofounder, but "Ex-chief organizer, Wikipedia". Could this be a compromise position? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I see no reason to compromise on the facts. "Chief organizer" was the name for my position or role in the community; "co-founder" was the name for the role I had vis-a-vis the founding the project. In the same way, I tend to identify myself as editor-in-chief of CZ rather than founder to its participants, even though I am also founder. --Larry Sanger 08:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a comment on the press releases at Talk:Larry_Sanger#The_facts_according_to_Wikipedia_press_releases_and_page_histories. — Matt Crypto 08:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is more evidence than the press releases, although they are the most official sources. You can hardly think that Jimmy didn't read them before they were released, or indeed that Jimmy never noticed any such reference before 2004 - because you sure can't find any comment from Jimmy from before 2004 where he explicitly objected to calling Larry a co-founder. Clearly he was aware of it, but he only started taking issue with it in 2004. Maybe by that time, considering Wikipedia's growth, he realized there was significant "value" to being "the founder"? Maybe it's the very thing he now accuses Larry of ("building a nice career on this lie"): Wikia has an advantage over its competitors because of the prestige value of being run by "the founder of Wikipedia", and there's now enough media interest in Wikipedia that "the founder of Wikipedia" can make good money with speaking fees etc. (more than a mere co-founder). Bramlet Abercrombie 12:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's disputed, so I don't think we should take a side, per NPOV. Further, I don't see why we need to address the issue in this article at all. — Matt Crypto 12:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By not calling Larry a co-founder, you are exactly taking Jimmy's side. There's really no way to not take sides. But how is Jimmy's personal opinion (which seems to be that an employee cannot possibly be a co-founder) relevant here? Is there any reliable source backing him up on this, explicitly denying that Larry is a co-founder? Bramlet Abercrombie 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"By not calling Larry a co-founder, you are exactly taking Jimmy's side." No, that's fallacious. NPOV is in the page itself, not the diffs. We are not taking anyone's side by referring to "Larry Sanger". By contrast, if the article said, "Larry Sanger, who was not a co-founder of Wikipedia", that would be taking a side. — Matt Crypto 13:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fallacious. If it is relevant to mention his co-founder status (which it surely is here, because it's notable that a co-founder of Wikipedia wants to fork it), and it's deliberately left out (as you would probably do in all other articles too then), it is exactly what Jimmy wants. If nowhere on Wikipedia he is called co-founder, then Wikipedia effectively says he is not a co-founder. Bramlet Abercrombie 13:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Faulty logic. If nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that Larry Sanger has a head, then does Wikipedia effectively say he has no head? Also, you seem to be asserting that there exists a default expectation that we take Larry's side and say he is a co-founder, and therefore when we do not do so, we are taking Jimbo's side. No such default expectation exists. — Matt Crypto 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Faulty logic. That a person has a head goes without saying. Only if a sufficiently notable fact is omitted, then Wikipedia effectively denies the fact. Larry's side is backed up by plenty of evidence, not just his own say-so. I haven't seen anyone yet explicitly taking up Jimmy's view. How can Jimmy singlehandedly make something "disputed"? If Jimmy says the Earth is flat, can our article no longer say it's round? Bramlet Abercrombie 13:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay, let's all do the Pedantic Semantics dance. rolls eyes. I think the only realistic approach is for Larry Sanger to discuss this directly with Jimbo. Our little pontifications on the issue won't get it solved or determine the proper Party-Approved POV. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, but before Larry and Jimbo resolve their differences (which could well be never), we still have to decide exactly how we write this article. Sure, I agree that we really don't want to pontificate on which of them is right. What we can and should discuss is how we can characterise Sanger in the meantime and still be NPOV. If there are indeed two POVs, then we cannot choose one of them, and there is no default. However, Bramlet has put forward the argument that "Jimbo's view" is maintained by him alone, in which case it should be treated per WP:Undue weight. The issue then becomes whether Bramlet is correct. Is "Jimbo's view" negligable as a POV? — Matt Crypto 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a perfect world it would depend on the sourcing. As it stands? You could say it goes both ways. The fact that it was undisputed before 2004 or whenever could mean that Larry Sanger was the co-founder. It could also mean that Jimbo didn't see it that way but didn't want to be a dick until things got strained between them. It could be that Jimbo didn't CARE as long as Larry was helping Wikipedia, but now that he's running Citizendium and is making all these loud noises about how his will be teh bettars, Jimbo sees no reason to allow Larry a false prop. That's what I mean about how they have to work it out. The only NPOV way to handle it is to state the bald facts: that Larry Sanger asserts he is a cofounder, which Jimmy Wales says is untrue. I think blanket calling Larry Sanger co-founder is just as bad as stating Larry Sanger was just an employee. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This statement of the "bald facts" is misleading, because it wasn't just Larry himself who called him a co-founder. It was the general view in the community that the two were co-founders, as the edit histories of many relevant articles show. That seems decisive to me. I don't see how Jimmy can put the matter in dispute more than three years after the event. Avoiding the term co-founder would indeed give undue weight to Jimmy's personal (and palpably self-serving) opinion. Bramlet Abercrombie 15:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell should it matter what the majority thought? Look, truth is truth. Either Sanger was a co-founder, or was not. As a philosophy PhD, he knows full well that this is a mere semantic game about the meanings of "co-founder" and "employee." Now, there clearly are factual claims being disputed in this sandbox battle. Nonetheless, those factual claims must be clearly demarcated from the semantic disputes.66.74.90.225 17:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

More important than what people thought three years ago is the division of opinion today, now that Jimbo has publicised a differing account. Let's avoid debating the issue itself, not least because whether Larry or Jimbo is correct, it shouldn't make any difference to how we approach it from the NPOV. — Matt Crypto 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the opinion today (so far as people have any opinion about it at all) is divided between Jimmy and everyone else. I haven't seen a single editor who has actually agreed with Jimmy's POV on this, and is prepared to defend it in debate. Those, like you, who argue for not describing Larry as co-founder seem to do so only because "there's a dispute", without themselves taking sides. I'd be interested to discuss the matter with anyone who agrees with Jimmy here, since I really cannot see what Jimmy's argument here is. He seems to misapply a "business view" to what is a cultural thing. It's sort of like saying we shouldn't remember Mozart so much, because he was just an employee of Count Colloredo, who was thus the real originator of (some of) Mozart's music. Which is absurd, as Mozart was the unique genius, while anyone else could have paid him. Now I'm not comparing Larry to Mozart here. Larry's role, too, could have been filled by anyone else, much like Jimmy's. Therefore Larry and Jimmy can be seen on an equal footing as co-founders, though if there's any difference to be noted, there was surely more creativity involved in what Larry did, i.e. if only one person had to be chosen as founder, I think Larry would have a better case than Jimmy. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if you want to debate whether Larry was a co-founder with an advocate of Jimbo's point of view (should they exist), then this talk page isn't really the place for it. The Village Pump is a better forum for discussions like that, and I wouldn't be surprised if you found takers. — Matt Crypto 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It was the general view of the community? What are you basing this on, precisely? To be honest, I had never even HEARD of Sanger until I saw something about him working with Citizendium. All I saw was Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia. You imply (or I'm being dense) that the attributed impressions of a community of pseudonomyous people is the determining factor of how to solve this issue. I'm more interested in finding a compromise everyone can deal with. The current impression is that Larry Sanger says he's a co-founder and can point to a bunch of older correspondance that he says proves it, and to the fact that Jimbo didn't deny he was a cofounder until more recently. Jimbo says Larry was an employee. The resignation letter implies he was a VERY HIGHLY placed and important "employee" with a wide range of contributions. I am uncomfortable with absolute verbiage in an arena where an absolute isn't proven. I would prefer a reference to the dispute, listing him as claiming to be a co-founder, rather than a blatant statment which I can just tell will end up in a revert war. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As a general comment, it's not good form to argue from ignorance. I first heard of Larry Sanger when he wrote an article in 2001 on my favourite site, Kuro5hin, promoting Nupedia and Wikipedia (Jimbo himself also wrote comments in the ensuing discussion). As the article says, Larry claimed in 2001 to be "editor-in-chief of Nupedia and chief instigator of Wikipedia." and Jimbo claimed to be "founder of Nupedia". While I'm not suggesting that what amounts to a press release with a question and answer session should be used as a Wikipedia-standard reliable source of any kind, it is interesting to see how both men chose to promote their projects and themselves at the time, five years ago at the outset of these projects. 62.31.67.29 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't forget that what Jimbo says isn't a reliable, independent, source. These sources say that Sanger is a co-founder: the guardian, CNet, New York Times. yandman 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There's [1], which records Wales's view, but doesn't assert it itself. — Matt Crypto 16:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikitruth's latest report from IRC, Jimmy is still trying to recruit meatpuppets to remove all references to Larry as co-founder: "Will someone help me by cleaning this up all over the site?" He also claims that Larry "made up the 'co-founder' bit after I fired him." I'm afraid he's wrong there. Already in December 2001, Larry wrote in his article/userpage (there was no distinction at the time): "I co-founded Wikipedia, and I am one of a few people who are paid to help organize this project." [2] It's hard to believe that he would have publicly asserted something like this while he was still in Jimmy's employ, if Jimmy wasn't agreeing with it. And indeed there's no evidence Jimmy ever protested about it until 2004, even though there are plenty of references to Larry as co-founder from between 2001 and 2004 so that Jimmy can't possibly have been ignorant of it until 2004. Bramlet Abercrombie 12:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

When you preface your comment with "according to [a website run by trolls]", it's difficult to take what you say seriously. — Matt Crypto 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good I didn't do that then and instead said "according to Wikitruth", which is a website run in part by admins, or do you think they just made up those IRC logs from the admin-only channel? Bramlet Abercrombie 13:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wales claims in the wikitruth link that "There are many more references referrring to me as founder". How do we handle that ? Suppose there are 20 times as many citations that call him the founder as there are links calling him/Sanger the co-founder, do we still give both claims equal weight ? Tintin (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just found something even more decisive. The New York Times article "Fact-Driven? Collegial? This Site Wants You" from September 2001 says: "It's kind of surprising that you could just open up a site and let people work," said Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's co-founder and the chief executive of Bomis... "I can start an article that will consist of one paragraph, and then a real expert will come along and add three paragraphs and clean up my one paragraph," said Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, who founded Wikipedia with Mr. Wales. And there are pictures of the two with the legend: Larry Sanger of Las Vegas, above, and Jimmy Wales of San Diego, below left, the founders of Wikipedia, an online reference tool. Does anyone think Jimmy didn't read this important early article? Is it not open and shut that he is blatantly lying when he says Larry made the co-founder thing up after he fired him? Bramlet Abercrombie 13:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you're in the realm of debating the issue itself. Please do not use this page for that. You can do it elsewhere. It is not our job to decide whether Jimmy is "blatantly lying" or not. — Matt Crypto 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

One thing that Jimmy is certainly blatantly lying about--and, if that transcript on Wikitruth is correct, it's not the only thing he's blatantly lying about--it's that he "fired" me. The facts are that Bomis had a dozen employees in 2001 and by early 2002 they were back to their original (pre-2000) five or so employees. I was told at the time (Dec. 2001) by Tim Shell, not Jimmy, that I would have to start looking for a new job, because they were hemorrhaging money and would have to lay off almost everyone. Jimmy said he'd have his marketing guy try to sell ads on Wikipedia, but that he had no luck, so I was laid off like Bomis' other employees. The fact that Jimmy tries to paint this picture in any other way is absolutely reprehensible and borders on--actually, it really is--libel. --Larry Sanger 09:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue for this page is whether to call Larry a co-founder in the article. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources. One person's denial of a verifiable fact doesn't make something "disputed". Bramlet Abercrombie 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but appearantly the issue is in dispute. IF the consensus is to call Sanger a co-founder as he claims , then someone needs to slap the disputed tag up there. I would rather find some kind of compromise position ("Larry Sanger claims he is the co-founder of Wikipedia, a position supported by previous Wikimedia Foundation documents and news stories but disputed by Jimbo Wales") until we can work out firm wording. I'd leave Wikitruth out of this, I'd rather trust the National Enquirer. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's like saying the shape of the Earth is in dispute. Just because some person may say it's flat doesn't mean the Wikipedia article can't say unequivocally that it's round. Jimmy's denial is irrelevant, so long as he's on his own with his opinion. Of course his view should be noted in articles like Jimmy Wales or History of Wikipedia, but it can be safely ignored elsewhere. Bramlet Abercrombie 14:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not as cut and dry as that. Jimmy has one POV while Sanger obviously has another. The issue is clearly contentious and subject to dispute, thus the best option is to stick to the facts, and the fact remains that Sanger has never been officially listed or addressed as the "founder of Wikipedia". He was employed to organize and direct Nupedia, and later Wikipedia. metaspheres 15:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not just between Wales and Sanger. There are plenty of sources confirming Sanger's view, not Jimmy's. I don't know what you mean with "officially listed or addressed" - if Sanger hasn't been, then neither has Wales. Although the press releases that speak of both as co-founders are as official as it gets. And everyone knows that Sanger was employed; this doesn't prevent one from being a co-founder by any definition I know. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

But we, as a tertiary source, can only use secondary sources as "evidence". Therefore, we have to repeat what reliable news sources say. And they all say he's a co-founder (see my links above). yandman 15:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? News sources get things wrong all the time. It happens to be called "media bias". Fox News is a news source, calls itself "fair and balanced" but hey, a lot of people out there wouldn't trust it a single bit. You can report what news sources state, but not always as fact, primarily where something is as subjective and as contentious as this. We're talking about a point in time in history where we only have the word of Wales and Sanger. The news sources report Sanger as "co-founder" because he himself tells them that. He's not going to tell them he was just an employee. He's going to work himself up. Pretty basic. metaspheres 16:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and at that point in time in history Wales and Sanger agreed that both were co-founders. See the NYT story, the press releases, etc. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a tech story on BBC News today which refers to Jimmy as "the founder of Wikipedia"[3], not "a founder" or "co-founder". But we have to be very careful about how much we treat incidental press descriptions as authoritative statements about an issue, particularly when the news story is not actually about the founding of Wikipedia. — Matt Crypto 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are of course plenty of media references to Jimmy as "the founder", but those are indeed incidental and not explicitly confirming Jimmy's view that Larry was not a co-founder. The press is often lazy and not questioning everything their interview partners tell them. Since Larry left in 2002, the media have talked a lot to Jimmy and not much to Larry, obviously. And when Jimmy tells them he is "the founder", they'll report that. At the same time, practically all stories that mention Larry will call him the co-founder. That's as metaspheres said, except that it goes both ways. So what counts are articles (such as the NYT article from 2001) that explicitly deal with the founding issue, and are based not just on interviews with Jimmy alone. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never agreed that Larry should be called co-founder and have contested it from the time when Larry awarded himself the title. Has Wikipedia made this error in the past many times? Yes, and so have the press. Nonetheless, it remains very much in dispute, and therefore it is always wrong to call Larry co-founder without at a bare minimum noting the dispute. In most cases, it is sufficiently irrelevant to a given mention of Larry that his self-awarded title need not be mentioned at all, in order to avoid pointing out that it is in dispute.--Jimbo Wales 13:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that you contested it before 2004? You must have noticed it through the NYT article at the latest. Since he was still employed by you at the time, why didn't you ask him to stop using the title? It doesn't seem to be "in dispute" except by yourself. That is not sufficient reason to avoid mentioning it. If his title is "self-awarded" then so is yours. Bramlet Abercrombie 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This is how it is - and there is no debating it

Whether Sanger was a co-founder or not is an obvious point of debate. Co-founder to me implies he had part ownership which is not the case. But my opinion doesnt mean shit - its all about our reliable sources. And, for every source you can find stating co-founder, I'll give another saying employee[4]

“ Wales launched a free encyclopedia, open to anyone who wants to contribute or edit articles. Wikipedia is now available in 110 languages and contains more than 1.5 million articles in English. It's instantly updatable and infinitely expandable, two features that a traditional printed encyclopedia can't match...Wikipedia was launched in January 2001. Larry Sanger, a philosophy PhD whom Wales had hired, came up with the name and says he proposed using wikis to realize Wales' vision of a free and open encyclopedia. But Sanger says he broke with Wales over Sanger's belief that experts should approve the articles. ”

However, no one debates that he was an employee. We have conflicting reliable sources stating he was co-founder or not (and conflicting primary sources as well as it happens).

Thus: co-founder is out - employee is in (in whatever specific capacity it seems is a far less contentious issue). Glen 15:43, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Being an employee does not preclude one from being a co-founder. It was common knowledge that he was an employee, and people still called him a co-founder. Nor does co-founder imply that he was part owner. The "point of debate" has been artificially started by Jimmy three years after the fact which it is about. The evidence is clear that he himself agreed with Larry being called a co-founder originally. We do not have any reliable source that explicitly says Larry was not a co-founder. Sources that incidentally label Jimmy as "the founder" are not equivalent to that. The Newsday article you quote doesn't take Jimmy's side. It says "Wales launched...", but then also says: "Wales drew criticism last year for editing his own bio on Wikipedia to de-emphasize Sanger's role in creating the encyclopedia." Having a role in creating sounds like being a co-founder to me. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recusing myself from this discussion before I get uncivil. I just think Glen has a point and that you're deciding not to see it. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think his use of boldface and of saying "there is no debating it" rather suggests he does not have a point. Same applies to you if you're tempted to get uncivil. If you had a point, you could just make it, civilly. Bramlet Abercrombie 16:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we already have been quite well acquainted with your views on the "is Larry a cofounder" question, Bramlet, there's no need to tell us about it over and over. You've made up your mind -- good for you. However, our personal opinions are not relevant here. The relevant questions are 1) if we need to discuss the issue of whether Larry was a founder, how do we do so according to the NPOV? and 2) do we need to discuss the issue at all in this article? The answers are 1) we describe the POVs of the parties involved without endorsing either, and 2) no. — Matt Crypto 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not about my opinion, but about what reliable sources say, and you still have none taking Jimmy's side. Again, this is a historical question, not a private dispute between two people only. Jimmy's opinion, as well as Larry's for that matter, is irrelevant to the question of whether Larry was a co-founder. Suppose Larry wanted to dissociate himself from Wikipedia for some reason and wouldn't want to be called a co-founder, he would still be one. You can't rewrite history just because you don't like it. The NYT article and other early articles and press releases, all of which Jimmy was obviously aware of, combined with the absence of any protest from Jimmy before 2004 is quite sufficient to settle the historical question. Jimmy is not a reliable source, so the mere fact that he now denies Larry's co-foundership has no more impact on the NPOVness of the matter than any random person's personal opinion. To answer your questions: 1) we do not need to "discuss" it in articles that are not directly dealing with the founding of Wikipedia; we can safely label Larry a co-founder, which is NPOV since there are plenty of reliable sources confirming it and none denying it. 2) no, certainly a "discussion" would be off-topic in this article; mentioning him as co-founder however is quite relevant, since this is not just a random fact about Larry but rather interesting in relation to the fact that he is now founding a fork of Wikipedia. Bramlet Abercrombie 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We do have a numerous press items and such that incidentally refer to Larry as "co-founder" or Jimbo as "the founder"; there is no clear reason we should choose to prefer either Larry or Jimbo's side on that basis. But none of those publications can be considered reliable sources for the issue in question. Truth be told, we don't really have any reliable third-party sources on this. For now, we'll have to stick to describing the positions of the people involved, or, as in the case of this article, avoiding the question entirely. — Matt Crypto 17:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I already said we can discount the incidental labels. But we do have articles like the NYT one which are quite specific and describe both as co-founders based on interviews with both. The question is indeed, who defines who is a founder? You seem to say "the people involved". But that just begs the question, who was involved? Any third person could come forward and claim he was involved too. Self-declarations are meaningless. I suggest the answer lies in what the general media and community view has been, especially during the time closest to the actual founding. And there we have those newspaper articles, Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles written by any number of different people showing that Jimmy and Larry were co-founders, without any dispute whatsoever. Bramlet Abercrombie 20:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to pull out actual textual sources that support my point of view, it will not go well for Jimmy and his defenders. Here's one: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April/039160.html It is, frankly, completely bizarre that Jimmy has even come to deny things that he himself has said in the past, such as that I came up with the idea for applying wikis to the problem of writing encyclopedias: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-October/018304.html There are many more where that came from. --Larry Sanger 09:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

why do those links give a 404 error???? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.126.214.137 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Yet another option: Go to the Nostalgia site and read who the regular editors were back then. Then go out and find them (we're still around) and ask us. I was there, as was Lee Daniel Crocker, The Epopt, AstroNomer, Simon J Kissane, JH Kemp, Koyanis Qatsi (I couldn't spell it then either), The (infamous) Cunctator, and several others (it's all there and easy enough to find).

Simple fact - Larry was the co-founder. I'll certainly vouch for it. I'll even vouch that the Cunctator, (who's absolute defiance of everything that Larry ever proposed was legendary), will share my view (at least on this score). I have tremendous respect for Jimbo, (and I haven't read any of the material that allegedly minimises LMS's role) but Larry is indisputably the co-founder. Manning 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Managing editor appointment crisis

Is demise of two editors-in-chief crisis or not? Is the word "crisis" POV in se? -- Zorro CX 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"Crisis" is unnecessarily and misleadingly melodramatic for the managing editor appointments, especially in a section title. The identity of the managing editor appears to make little or no difference to CZ, as long as Larry is around. If Larry suddenly abandoned the project, his departure might constitute a genuine crisis for CZ, though even this trauma might not prove fatal. The dictionary definition of "crisis":

3 a: an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially: one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome <a financial crisis> b: a situation that has reached a critical phase <the environmental crisis>

CZ continues to crank along virtually unchanged despite the managing editor appointments. So the appointments hardly seem "decisive" or "crucial" to its future, nor have they produced any sort of "highly undesirable outcome". Casey Abell 15:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)