User talk:Larry Sanger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents of old User page:

My name is Larry Sanger and I was (with Jimbo Wales) instigator of Wikipedia, and the first (and so far only) editor-in-chief of Nupedia. I'm responsible for the original concept and the name "Wikipedia" and a lot of the original formulations of Wikipedia's most basic policy. Since funding for my salary ran out, leading to my departure in March 2002, I can take no credit and no blame for changes that have occurred since then. Ph.D. 2000, M.A. 1995, Philosophy, Ohio State University. B.A. 1991 Philosophy, Reed College. Home town is Anchorage, Alaska.

Please have a look at (and spread around links to) this Personal Statement about Wikipedia's Reliability. (Link no longer working.)

I can be reached at sanger (a t) citizendium (d o t) org.

All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you continue

  • to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular,
  • to be focused singlemindedly on writing an encyclopedia, not on Usenet-style debate,
  • to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced,
  • to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project,
  • to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,
  • to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and
  • to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

I set up an encyclopedia meta-search engine (this link no longer works). I hope you'll find it useful when researching Wikipedia articles.

If you are spending too much time on Wikipedia, you could always use my Human Activity Logger (dead link ?)to help you toward more self-discipline!  ;-)

Historical note:

Until December 2001, I was a full-time paid employee of Bomis, spending most of my work time (especially in the latter part of 2001) on Wikipedia. As of February 1, 2002, I was no longer paid at all; I made an announcement explaining that I'd continue on as a part-time volunteer. On March 1, 2002, I resigned responsibility for leading Wikipedia and as editor-in-chief of Nupedia; my reasons are given in my letter of resignation to the community. To reiterate, primarily I needed this extra time to find a job, and I felt that I could not work effectively as a leader when I am working only as a part-time volunteer. I participated in mailing list discussions and on the wiki to a small extent in the fall of 2002, but since December 2002 have drifted away.

Text from the old talk:Larry_Sanger page:

Larry - I think there is a partial consensus (oxymoron?) that when disputes arise you are the nearest thing to an arbitrator there is. I don't know if we have (or need) a formal system of arbitration.

I don't see a very large consensus yet, and I don't see a need to make it official in any case. --LMS

I am not opposed to establishing a voluntary system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia, but there is a very real danger that establishing any formal system of arbitration/mediation will lay the groundwork for establishing a hierarchical power structure here. At the same time, the best argument for establishing a formal policy regarding arbitration/mediation is to make certain that procedural safeguards are put into place to prevent anyone from establishing a hierarchical power structure.

Beyond the naked fact that Bomis hosts Wikipedia and that certain people who have made it past a probationary period are allowed to request Wikipedia administrator privileges from Bomis, there seems to be very little formal structure here. People make changes to articles as they see fit, and when a conflict arises, people are forced to work it out amongst themselves.

I am reminded of how ODP first established "voluntary editor mediation" to resolve disputes between editors. Very quickly, this voluntary mediation process evolved into a de facto process for enforcement of the ODP Guidelines by ODP's meta editors. Meanwhile, the ODP Guidelines themselves went from being a recapitulation of the consensus of the volunteer editors to a strict code of conduct which was determined by ODP staff, and ODP devolved into a Lord of the Flies subculture.

The question remains as to whether it is necessary to establish a formal system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia. I think it is, but not to resolve disputes. Rather, it should be established with appropriate procedural safeguards to protect the rights of individuals to ignore all rules.--NetEsq


If you want a list of "24"'s contributions, you might do worse than take a look at User:24.150.61.63. -- Anon.

Oh boy--time to get out the shovels. --Larry Sanger

Hello Mr. Sanger. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and have only now put together the history behind the project. I'm saddened by the way you were compelled to resign. Really it's just one of thousands of saddening stories accompanying the bursting of the Internet bubble, but it's just a shame that excellent work like this really can't find decent remuneration and I guess it won't change soon. I'd like to personally thank you, though, for your crucial role in creating Wikipedia and sustaining it in its infancy. It's a real achievement that can never be deleted from your past... I have a vague hope that the project will be transferred from Bomis (which, judging from its rather laughable website is not long for this world) to a company that can support it while understanding there's no chance of its making money for years. I think such a company would be very keen to try to get you back.

Anyway, I was hoping that if you have the time and inclination you might go to talk:Race and give your input on a dispute I'm having with another writer. It started out being slightly ad-hominem but we've got that under control now. I think the balance I'm trying to bring to the article is important and hope you'll agree and maybe put in a few words to that effect. The other guy has threatened to blow away some very carefully crafted stuff I added and I hope a word from you will give him pause. I know it's not your job anymore and I ask mostly because I think you'll find it interesting. Thanks -- JDG 17:35 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words.

I can tell you that Bomis (Jimbo Wales) would never, as long as they can afford it, want to give up sponsoring Wikipedia. Whatever you might think of Bomis.com, they put well over a hundred thousand dollars (various salaries, mainly) into the project of building a free encyclopedia, and lack of funds for my salary notwithstanding, continue to support it very well. It's a feather in Jimbo's cap and by golly, he can and ought to wear it proudly.

I would not want to come back to lead Wikipedia. It is unleadable. Certain characters, who would be delighted if I named them by name so I won't, made my job quite unpleasant due to their constant attacks on my (very modest) attempts to exert some authority or influence (and thus do my job).

I would like to come back and lead a different Nupedia, though. It was rather sad that it worked out precisely as it did, but here's the story--in January 2001, I started Wikipedia when Nupedia had just gone live with its new system. Even by then I knew that Nupedia's editorial mechanism had become too cumbersome, and indeed Wikipedia was one of the ideas to supplement it. Over the next months, through the spring and summer of 2001, I started spending more and more time on Wikipedia, at first just because it really needed the guidance, and later because Jimmy specifically asked me to spend as much time on Wikipedia as possible, because it seemed to be the project that really had a going chance of succeeding.

In the fall and early winter of 2001 on Nupedia-L and Advisory-L (Nupedia's advisory board mailing list) we had a discussion and vote on a new editorial system for Nupedia. By then my time allotted to Nupedia was practically zilch; so, before January 2002, when I was on half pay and half time, and February 2002 when money ran out entirely, I didn't have enough time to get Nupedia going again under the new plan.

I have run the idea by Jimmy that I simply completely take over the Nupedia project (I would actually buy the thing from him) but he doesn't like the idea. He has assured me that he will get it running again, soon, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't get me wrong--I think Jimbo's heart is in the right place, he just doesn't have enough time to manage the projects he's started. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is more or less self-managing.

I'm sorry, but I'd rather not step into the race debate...

--Larry Sanger

I'd agree that Wikipedia is unleadable under current rules. I don't think any community can survive when there's no mechanism to shut down those who disrupt it at the foundations. Pure unpoliced egalitarianism runs up against one enduring fact of human nature: there will always be those who dedicate themselves to undermining the careful labor and cooperative spirit of others. It's just in their bones. If the finance situation were to turn around somehow and you could come back, there would need to be some new and startling by-laws. Heading the list would be a provision allowing you to propose a ban of anyone (perhaps for something like 2 months the first time, permanently the second time) who you feel is sytematically hindering your work. This proposal would be put to a vote by Wikipedians in which your vote alone counts for 10% of the vote total (if 300 people voted, your vote would be 30 votes)... It's sad there are people like Cunctator who are sly enough not to commit outright vandalism but who can make the leader's life miserable. In the Old West they had a phrase: "That man needs killin'", applied to people who gummed up the whole works by setting people and families against each other. Usually the offender was run out on a rail rather than actually killed. Online collaboration is settling a frontier and no frontier was ever settled without a supply of tar and feathers.-- JDG

I think the community--and this includes me, by the way--has made it clear enough that money for Wikipedia would not go first and foremost to the salary of anything like an editor.

You might not know this, but I am as responsible as anyone for the current extremely liberal banning policy. While I was managing Wikipedia, while I did pretty much immediately ban anyone who was obviously just a vandal (often, though, I'd wait for at least two infractions), and while I often threatened miscreants with banning and told certain individuals privately that they should just leave (e.g., that was the case with Helga, many months before things came to a head for her), in fact the first person who was actually banned from the project was "24," by Jimbo. Generally, I support the current policy of having public discussion of outright bans (not just recommendations and threats) and then doing it only after really serious consideration--and only in the most egregious cases.

Your proposal, to give me the power to ban people who are thorns in my side, would receive virtually no support from anyone now in the project. I would oppose it myself, or rather, if given such a power and I had my old job back, I wouldn't use it. That just isn't the way forward.

Please have a look at the Wikipedia-L archives from last August or September, in which I brought up the issue of mediocre quality and how to deal with it. You'll find that I have a different sort of solution: we need to revive a different Nupedia. Wikipedians, in their hubris, think they have all the answers to making a great encyclopedia. In fact, they really need a Nupedia. --Larry Sanger

I take your points, but it was you who said Wikipedia is "unleadable". Maybe you meant it can grow into a solid resource without any leadership, but I don't know about that. Anyway, I realize I'm asking you to restate stuff you're probably tired of stating. It's just that I'm new to Wikipedia and in the first blush of fascination with the idea. At least you're still around in some form -- JDG

Well, what you're saying makes total sense, from a certain point of view, and I didn't mean to say it didn't. Some of the stuff I said above in fact I said for the first time, actually, and you're the first person in a long time to suggest that we need more centralized control.

Wikipedia does have the leadership of a shifting group of people who happen to be most active and well-respected in the project. They're not elected, though. They just take responsibility and work a lot.

I do have some apprehension that, if we keep losing many of our best people, the overall quality of the project will decline. For one thing, I think people don't realize how important experts and academics are and have been for Wikipedia. Without them, I still maintain (as I maintained on Wikipedia-L), Wikipedia will probably never rise above a certain level of mediocrity, just as Everything2 never will. The question is whether some manner of leadership--whether from within Wikipedia or from some project independent of Wikipedia--is required to attract and retain such people. I suspect the answer is yes, so on that point I actually agree with you. --Larry Sanger

As resident philosopher, can you look at my description of the use of counterxamples in philosophy on Counterexample and make sure that it's reasonable? Thanks! — Toby 12:19 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

It's reasonable! --Larry Sanger

Would you have a moment to check what is said about Analogy of being at the entry on Apophatic theology? I'm not sure that I've got it right. — Mkmcconn

I really don't know anything about that--sorry. --Larry Sanger

Thank you anyway. I hope that doesn't mean that I've distorted beyond recognition, a topic you are in fact familiar with! — Mkmcconn 23:39 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Larry,

I've been reading about the "Problem of Induction" lately, and I'm now left with the impression that philosophers have put a lot more effort into figuring out the circumstances under which inductive reasoning is justified than those under which deductive reasoning is. In particular, while it seems very popular to be skeptical of the soundness of induction, deduction seems, for the most part, unquestionably acceptable in almost every case. (Provided fallacies are avoided, of course.) I'm wondering if, to help even the score, you could suggest any philosophers who either try to problematize deductive reasoning, or others who make a serious attempt to justify it. Surely this must keep someone up late at night.

The most interesting things I've found along these lines are:

  1. Lewis Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles" (in Godel, Escher, Bach)
  2. Hofstadter's justification of the rules of first order logic (also somewhere in Godel, Escher, Bach). It's something along the lines of, "Don't these rules sound like what a sane person must believe? If you are sane, and you intuitively believe them, do you really need to question them?"

Obviously I could find someone willing to argue about deduction if I go far enough afield, say, into postmodern literary theory. But that stuff doesn't strike me as terribly serious or compelling.

--Ryguasu 04:33 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

One of the best things on that question is my dissertation.  ;-) Seriously, what my dissertation was about was the problem that the justification of induction and of deduction have in common.

The leading view on the question you mention is that there's nothing wrong with the circularity involved in deductive justifications of deduction. The modern locus classicus of this view is Nelson Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Also, Susan Haack wrote an article called "The Justification of Deduction" in Mind. For the underlying issues, you could always go here and use your browser's search function to find "deduction" on the Chapter 3 page. --Larry Sanger

Larry,

Thanks for the philosophy references. I've copied them to my user page now, in case you want to delete the above.

On another note, you were right about the Lakoff page being a bunch of crap. I'm starting to fix it up.

--Ryguasu 23:23 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC)


In curious as to whether or not you had been following the Irish potato famine article and its related talk, and the issues of domineering bias permeating it... I feel Ive been compromising too much on the issue of British imperialism, and have some inkling that this has being done with the threat of my removal, for making my voice known. -Sv

Larry, what was that page I just edited that I thought was this page? Anyway, to answer your question that by now you've probably forgotten asking: No, "Anglican Church" is not the same as "Church of England". All churches belonging to the Anglican Communion, and some that do not belong are Anglican churches. That includes the Episcopal Church in the USA, which is obviously not part of the Church of England. Michael Hardy 20:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hey Larry, if from time to time people have edited the article on identity and change, is it still the same article? (Do you still read this page? If not, then ignore this posting.) Michael Hardy 21:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's Ding an Sich with the statement One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color). Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? Brianshapiro

on the talk page for the United Kingdom you say that the UK includes Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the channel islands and the isle of man. Just wanted to point out that this is very wrong, the UK is in fact just great britain plus northern ireland, the channel islands and Man are crown dependencies. Grunners 03:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] LarrySanger moved to User:Larry Sanger/old

Heya, In an effort to clean up the main namespace, the redirect at LarrySanger has been moved to User:Larry Sanger/old, as there's some edit history of yours there, should you want to keep it. --fvw* 03:17, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Ditto for User:Larry Sanger/old-LarrysText. --fvw* 20:15, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

[edit] purpose and objectivity

Any opinions on my comments at Talk:List of philosophical topics (A-C) discussion page on the articles with these two titles? Michael Hardy 22:41, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] conspiracy theories

I am having trouble finding a neutral lead definition. There is the legal definition which combines the concepts of a "theory" and "people conspiring together" in a criminal act context. Then there is the colloquial defn which talks about unfounded theories defying common understanding. These definitions are in some ways at polar opposites.

In my googling, I've found that dictionary definitions tend to agree with the legal version. However the previous lead wikipedia definition

A conspiracy theory is a theory that defies common historical or current understanding of events, under the claim that those events are the result of manipulations by two or more individuals or various secretive powers or conspiracies.

seems to match up more with the colloquial definition and is hard to grasp. I changed the lead wiki definition to be more consistent with the legal/dictionary definitions, and easy for me to read/understand. Since you are the creator of this article, I thought it would be best if you resolved this issue and merged my thoughts with yours to be more NPOV and accurate. Bogusstory 22:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bayesian probability

I definitely agree with Larry (i.e. "LMS") on this one. The fact that different probabilities may be assigned given different information certainly is not enough to mean they're subjective. Michael Hardy 30 June 2005 23:52 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi, Larry. I posted some comments at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, saying I agreed with you (but whether you will think my comments agree with your position or disagree with it may be another matter). But after posting, I noticed your comments were no longer there. Did you recant? Michael Hardy 19:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I don't remember whether I recanted or not. I might or might not have removed my remarks. I now take the position that a certain kind of category hierarchy might be useful, but I'd rather not go into detail.

But feel free to reinstate my comments if you want to put yours into context.

(As you can see, I don't check this page very often!)

--Larry

Michael Hardy, this is a link to Larry's comments in the archive. 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rfd de:Larry Sanger

Hi, Larry. I just noticed that the German article de:Larry Sanger is suggested for deletion ... --Roland2 12:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Smallsquirrel.png

Please provide a source and license for your small squirrel so we can keep him around. (Otherwise, we will have to delete it after 7 days.) Thanks! -SCEhardT 05:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heya

OK, there does seem to be a dispute about the founding of Wikipedia (I've never really bothered to document Jimbo's life history, nor your own). However, I'd like to give things a shot. I'll try to updated the Jimbo Wales page soon, including your recollection that you helped found the site, but that Jimbo doesn't agree. I know it's not really what you want, but it's probably the best I can do under the circumstances. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back - hope you decide to hang around occasionally. Trödel•talk 13:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, just back to deal with the aftermath of recent announcements.  ;-) "Ta bu shi da yu," you are absolutely right that it isn't what I want, because there are actually facts here that are not in dispute, even by Jimmy. You say Jimmy doesn't agree; with what, exactly, does he not agree? By reporting certain undisputed facts, which are important enough if an article about me is warranted at all, one puts the lie to any notion that I was not co-founder, chief architect, chief organizer, or whatever you want to call me. There are people who were there, moreover, such as User:AstroNomer, whom you might interview, since you were not there yourself. --Larry Sanger 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Even if you are only here for that now - imho - missing Wikipedians should always be welcomed back warmly. And I hope you find a reason to stay around and make occasional edits, I'm sure the history of wikipedia articles will be adjusted towards NPOV overtime, like all the articles, instant perfection we don't have. Trödel•talk 19:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Well, this is kind of funny, because I actually started the practice (as far as I recall) of welcoming people on their user pages.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, that is humorously ironic. I missed your welcome though - my first username edit was in Jul 2004 under User:Trodel Trödel•talk 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright

Hi, I've been cleaning up image copyrights, and came across Image:20ency1.1.jpg, which says in good passive voice "was taken". But the question of copyright hinges upon who did the taking - was it you, or an NYT staff photographer, or somebody else? Stan 19:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Hi Larry Sanger, I know you aren't officially an editor here but perhaps you can help... [1] "NPOV was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher". -- Who was this philosopher? Is the earliest version available somewhere?.Bensaccount 20:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The philosopher would be me. See this page for Nupedia's "nonbias policy." I drafted it well before Wikipedia was conceived of, in spring or summer of 2000. Also, while we're at it, I started the longer version of Wikipedia's neutrality policy; see this page for an early draft. --Larry Sanger 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Barnstar of Diligence.png

You deserve it! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV misleadingly jumbles language and selective bias

For your information, severe problems with NPOV have been discussed on its talk page during the last weeks. The root of the problem is that the name "neutral point of view", means:

neutral (adjective) - not engaged on either side
point of view (or viewpoint) - (noun) - a position from which something is considered or evaluated

Thus the policy should deal with describing views without engaging in them, or asserting each one's validity, ie avoiding language bias or alternatively narrative bias. Fair enough.

The problem is that the policy also trys to do much more than that, it also advocates a completely different thing which is balancing views ie. avoiding selective bias - bias that naturally stems from the selection of facts. This has led to an enormous amount of confusion and misunderstanding, when both of these aspects are collectively referred to as "NPOV".

The problem is further increased in practice, when wikipedia editors mistakenly identify their prose as "neutral" when in is written in the "uninvolved" aspect of the "neutral viewpoint". This false sense of "neutrality", unfortunately, encourages wishful thinking and strengthens their sense of cognitive bias. Hostility and distrust may even arise when their work is criticised as (selectively) "biased" or in the wikipedia (IMO horrible) jargon "POV".

My efforts at pointing out this critical distinction are generally not positively accepted. Editors seem to treat the NPOV policy as a sort of "taboo issue" (may I add "scripture", "dogma", "ideology") and tend to deny or ignore any criticisms of it.

The policy itself is extremely vague and ambiguous, overly verbose, and self-contradicting. Discussion also shows that various unrelated interpretations of it have been created by editors. I have also personally accused it for deliberately distorting the notions of neutrality, fairness, knowledge, minority, majority and morality. And for being more a platform of propaganda and advocacy rather than an actual (useful or citeable) policy. For your information. --Anon84.x 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that this request for a clear explanation of both narrative bias and selective bias, and their relationship, is not an attempt to add new rules to determine what can be included in Wikipedia. Instead, we advocate that the current neutral point of view policy should simply refer as much as needed to known selection rules in the no original research and the verifiability policies. As pointed out above by Anon84.x the problem is that the current formulation jumbles narrative and selection bias, and thus can be used to suggest that eliminating narrative bias is sufficient to remove all bias. This is in contradiction with the other policies, which state that they are an integral part of what is needed to achieve neutrality. The basic idea is that if selection is based upon reputable publications, it is more neutral than if it is based upon the personal opinion of the editors. --Lumiere 20:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's another way to look at what I'm trying to point out: NPOV suggests that a journalist who does not make any interpretations or judgments about the facts (or views, for this matter) he presents, is unbiased. However, I mean that NPOV only superficially suggests that, but does not claim that, as it also talks about balancing (selecting) views and representing various opinions.

But please agree with me that if the average user of the policy is not able to make and understand this important distinction, then this is simply returning to the same old game of the objectivity of the press. In this time wikipedians (rather than journalists) backed by their incorrect interpretation of the (provably vague) NPOV policy, feel they are writing in the name of truth (call it neutrality, whatever) as they believe themselves to be "neutral" (aka by wikisynonym "objective").

I do not mean to insult you, but please understand, even for the benefit of your new projects, that sufficiently critical participants will not accept this kind of vague and simplistic guidelines. I am surprised that NPOV was not demanded to be clarified or brought to the community scrunity. I think this is one of the critical decisions that had brought this project to its current miserable state.

NPOV does not make much sense, period. And the wikipedians like it that way. Haven't you heard? wikipedia has turned into a gathering point for flocks of irrational mediocrities, unintersted or capable of critical or original thought, obssessed by the status-quo and their "consensus" which is their nice little euphemism for "groupthink". The NPOV dogma suites that well, here's a testimony from one of the discussions of my proposals:

Ok. Looking again over what comments you asked for, "What I'm asking is whether this formulation is helpful for a better (more accurate) understanding of the policy." By "this formulation", I going to assume you mean one that "reflects a precise distinction between "narrative bias" and "selective bias"". In that case, I don't think that such a formulation is helpful for a better, or more accurate understanding of this policy. I think the policy is vague on this point, but I think intentionally so, and clarifying it goes against the spirit, as well as the letter, of the policy, and also goes against the general practice of Wikipedians and Wikipedia. I wish you luck, but I do not feel that such a formulation would be of benefit to the NPOV policy, or to Wikipedia as a whole. Thanks for clarifing your intentions! JesseW, the juggling janitor 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Even in my wildest dreams, I never imagined an "encyclopedia" that would be run by "janitors"! --Anon84.x 23:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

My advice to you is to direct your criticisms to the actual statement of the policy. Based on these criticisms I have doubts that you really have bothered very carefully reading it. But you're not alone--most people who think there is something deeply wrong with it have never really tried to understand it, I think; their attacks are almost always attacks on straw men. But anyway, I am long since finished debating it on Wikipedia. We might continue the debate, on a higher and more productive level, in the context of the Digital Universe. --Larry Sanger

Dear Larry, I understand what you are saying. It makes sense that you decided to move along with a different approach. I also think that the problem with Wikipedia is not mainly with the policy, though it could be improved, but with the understanding of the policy. I sincerely think that this policy was well thought. I know that I will not be the first wikipedian editor to ask you not to abandon entirely your role withing Wikipedia. You might not be able to change the whole thing, which is out of control, but with a little investment of time you could make a difference.

I had a look at Digital Universe in the hope to find some specific technology, some rules to guide the collaboration, but did not find anything. Can you tell me where I can find this? --Lumière 14:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, not another encyclopedia with that psuedohumanistic rationalist propoganda. The NPOV is always biased to the consensus theory of truth, Mr Sanger. You are imposing a petty view of the world on the naive internet mobs, masquerading as "Neutrality". I would love to engage in a contextual discussion on this. And if you find my writing inflammatory, it is only because I was myself indoctrinated by NPOV. I feel no need to apologize as I was insulted just as well. (perhaps even more) --Anon84.x 14:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it. I think there is a basic and simple problem with NPOV that makes it "inherently wrong". The problem is that it simply does not aim to any truth, other than that is reflected by the writers' common bias. It does not aim for some consistency or coherence in what it presents. I.e: it is process oriented: it is good at minimizing social conflict and disagreement. It might be nice to reflect some ideal of humanism, but what does that has to do with capturing some version of truth? (in that sense my criticism is similar to that of 24, if you remember this)
The common response here is that "writing an encyclopedia isn't about truth, it is about informing about facts". Yes, but denying that the naive reader will naturally evolve conclusions from the facts the writers chose to present, is telling a big, big lie to yourself. --Anon84.x 16:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
To remind you of 24's criticism:
Let me see if I understand you. If we all choose to work together co-operatively, in an effort to encompass the widest possible points of view, in a spirit of helpfulness, thoughtfulness, and compassion, then we will "harm everything alive that we touch"? I must beg to differ. [--Jimbo]
beg all you want - the philosophy you outline is called w:humanism and it is destructive to all non-human life forms. Your "work", "effort", "spirit", etc,. are guided by a w:cognitive bias and w:culture bias, but not sense of w:notation bias or limits to your wisdom. There was a terrific statement by w:Buffy Ste. Marie about this at a conference of w:indigenous peoples. She recounted a white man saying "how come you all say different things but you all agree about us?" - and the huge laugh that this got among natives with no further discussion. The white man thinks his words are real, and that they describe his actions. That is simply not true, and he does vast harm by believing such nonsense. [--24] --Anon84.x 16:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Another way to put it is that I see NPOV only "unbiased" as an "annotated bibliography", and not more. Anything it says beyond pointing to different viewpoints reflects a common bias, that is genuinely dangerous as it tends to reinforce itself by the agreement of all editors, and consequently imposing itself on the reader. That's what I meant by "a petty view on truth".
However, "common bias" isn't nessecerily bad. Well performed synthesis of views and facts can get interesting results. However, that's the sort of things experts are supposed to do so..
NPOV is not really special or novel. It may converge to an "expert viewpoint" (a viewpoint, that is, not "neutral" in any sense), or it may just be "stuck" at reinforcing the view of the majority, producing a mediocre result. (see wikipedia for more on that) --Anon84.x 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

More of my criticisms (My "test case" was the article on transcendental meditation) here --Anon84.x 10:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia

I just wanted to let you know that User:SushiGeek has put User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia on WP:MFD. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it the decision was speedy keep. Trödel•talk 00:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Roselfeld

Hey, are you sure you don't remember a Jeremy Rosenfeld? At all? Are you suggesting that he is fiction? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jeremy_Rosenfeld_2#.5B.5BJeremy_Rosenfeld.5D.5D --Candide, or Optimism 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Hi. Your request for protection at /Origins of Wikipedia is obviously either being overlooked or ignored by administrators. I've listed it at WP:RPP. An admin should reply shortly. --TantalumTelluride 05:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I don't think anyone's going to protect it because of the rule against pre-emptive protection. I would make an exception in this case, and I actually don't think it would be a bad idea to lower the protection criteria in general. Whoever came up with the concept of a wiki encyclopedia that anyone can edit, anyway? ... Oh, yeah. That was you. No offense. --TantalumTelluride 22:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we all make mistakes from time to time . . . nobody's perfect (except of course certain members of the US Congress). GreenReaper 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If there's a rule against pre-emptive protection, why are images always protected when they go on the Main Page? NeonMerlin 11:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Woe, Woe is Wikipedia

Hi, I see you just dropped by to comment in Talk:Bernard Haisch, so I just wanted to let you know that I am actively seeking feedback pro/con on my own evolving analysis, documented at my user page where you can find a summary of my views. Supporting evidence will eventually go to User:Hillman/Wikipedia_quality_control which is currently rather disorganized, but in User:Hillman/Media_commentary_on_Wikipedia I gave pride of place to your own essays. I seem to largely agree with Wikipedia's most cogent outside critics and have even called for a coup which would replace Jimbo with Robert McHenry and/or yourself if either of you were willing! :-/ (Not that I see any hope of this actually happening; my call for revolt was partly tongue-in-cheek.)

I'd also be very interested in your feedback on my comments about Digital Universe.---CH 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] request

Can you either activate the "E-mail this user" feature for your Wikipedia user account or send me an email through my account? Thanks. --JWSchmidt 05:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had a need to authenticate any e-mail address in the system yet--why not just use blarneypilgrim [at] yahoo [dot] com? --Larry Sanger 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guideline proposal could use your comments

Larry,

What do you think of Wikipedia:Intentionally permanent red link? I am trying to build consensus on the talk page so that this guideline, or an alternative, can be put in place ASAP, and one of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars will end once and for all. Comments from someone as influential as yourself would be a big help. NeonMerlin 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that really is a lame edit war. My suggestion would be for Wikipedia to adopt a fairer, more sensible decisionmaking process, and then make whatever is decided actually enforceable. Clearly, the edit war is much more of a problem than either the presence or the absence of "intentionally permanent red links." --Larry Sanger 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this language POV?

In response to a 1999 controversy covered by the press concerning a group of Wiccans in the United States military who were holding religious rituals and services on the grounds of the bases they were assigned to, Weyrich sought to exempt Wiccans from the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment[9] and bar them from serving the military altogether. Weyrich, as president of the Free Congress Foundation, led a coalition of ten religious right organizations that attempted a Christian boycott on joining the military until all Wiccans were removed from the services, saying:

"Until the Army withdraws all official support and approval from witchcraft, no Christian should enlist or re-enlist in the Army, and Christian parents should not allow their children to join the Army" ... "An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America" ... "The official approval of satanism and witchcraft by the Army is a direct assault on the Christian faith that generations of American soldiers have fought and died for" ... "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks. It's time for the Christians in this country to put a stop to this kind of nonsense. A Christian recruiting strike will compel the Army to think seriously about what it is doing." -- Paul Weyrich "'Satanic' Army Unworthy of Representing United States," Free Congress Foundation press release, June 9, 1999.[9]

I would appreaciate your input because I am concerned this passage regarding Paul Weyrich represents the editor's interpretation of Mr. Weyrich's statement, not actually what he said. My take is the sentence "If the Army wants witches and satanists in its ranks, then it can do it without Christians in those ranks." is acrostic sarcasm. Sort of a if Army wants to promote "witchcraft" then Christians should have nothing to do with it.

I'd appreciate your input.--68.45.161.241 04:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is Imortal

Does Wikipedia have any ads for attracting people to the site or is it just spoken word or magic? And when will you change the design interface or are you already doing it in small steps and when will we see this new interface if there is one? I love this site it is the best for people who need to be in the know.

Kenster102.5

Posted:10/17/06, 10:16 PM (GMT-5:00) Eastern Time(United States and Canada)

[edit] Great work

Netizens will always be indebted to founders of Wikipedia. Great show!--Darrendeng 05:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] typo

In your FAQ, you wrote "Bomis' many other". I assume you are familiar with the book "The Elements of Style" in in it, it explains that it should be "Bomis's". Anomo 06:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Hello, I noticed your post on Jimbo's page today - didn't know you still participated here at all. So I'd like to offer a couple of comments. I came to Wikipedia in October 2005, raised one article and two lists to featured status, and helped craft the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. I've been an administrator since October 2006 and specialize in difficult investigations.

Some of the editors I respect have given Citizendium a try and invited me to join them. The main reason I've turned down the offers is because I prefer not to reveal my real world name. I'm not ashamed of my background - I have an Ivy League education - but due to the kinds of administrative work I perform I'd rather not give troublemakers a way to find me. Every now and then I block an editor who's made a death threat and last week I reported a suicide threat to the Pennsylvania state police. Most of these threats are baseless, but it would only take one serious threat to change my life. I have no intention of making that easy (and due to my rather unusual name it would be easy).

I wish you well with Citizendium. I don't know whether you get this type of comment very often, but I have a hunch this limits your userbase. DurovaCharge! 04:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We have over 400 people who are willing to use their real names, and that's before we've gone public and before any serious recruitment efforts. So I'm not worried. --Larry Sanger 09:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well then I'll be over here helping Wikipedia produce GNU content for your site to improve. Happy holidays. DurovaCharge! 19:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Larry - I've been having a wander down memory lane by reading your memoirs about the early days... and was particularly entertained to read many of the judgemental comments made by people who know nothing about those days. As a result I'm having Wiki'nam flashbacks... ("You weren't there, man - you'll never know!".)

I even managed to find the Wedding Card we all wrote for you back in December 01. JHK, AstroNomer, and even a civil addition from Cunc. Those are days I will always look back on fondly. Anyway, I'm really glad to see you are doing interesting things and I am keenly observing the Citizendium. Dunno if you need blanket generalists like myself or not, but I'll be happy to dive in if there's room. Warm regards, Manning 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Manning, CZ was set up for people like you. Please do join us! --Larry Sanger 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biology

Hi Larry, Your biology article looks ok, though I havn't read it in detail yet. Will be iteresting to compare it with Wikipedia's. One thing, strange you would use a generalist continental species to illustrate a specialist island bird. But then, I'm not an expert.... Cheers, --Michael Johnson 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You can improve the article, if you think it needs improvement--just go to http://www.citizendium.org/cfa.html

Oops, there I go sounding like a Wikipedian defending Wikipedia: "Change it if you don't like it!"  ;-)

Also, it's in no way my article. Credit goes to many people, but I'm not among them. --Larry Sanger 20:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest wikipedia edit

Hi Larry. I'm trying to find the oldest wikipedia article. So far, the oldest I have found is Talk:Smallpox, for which you edited on 20th June 2001, however, when I click on your name, to view your edit history, it goes only as far back as 30th January 2002! Any idea how I can view your (or anyone else's) edit history for 2001 please? Many thanks, --Rebroad 13:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Remove the space from the username. That will return the older results. — Aluvus t/c 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Have you been to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Essjay yet? I'm sure you're input would be appreciated. --Hojimachongtalk 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Larry

Its nice to see you back on Wikipedia. Certainly you represent an important critical voice with some good ideas which are still appreciated by many of us. But I dont think picking on Essjay is one of them. -Ste|vertigo 07:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enjoy, Larry!

Trampton has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Trampton 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email for you

I sent you an email yesterday. Just letting you know in case it got eaten by spam filters. Andjam 23:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] As far as I'm concerned

You are not the co-founder of wikipedia, the term is a loaded one; you assisted with wikipedia's founding.--Trulexicon 01:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Right! So did Jimmy, by paying my salary.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 02:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well than all references which refer to you "as the founder of wikipedia" should be removed and reverted on sight.--Trulexicon 01:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Only if the same applies to Jimmy.  ;-) --Larry Sanger 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly known for being the greatest fan of Jimmy, but if you were his employee, then how could you possibly be counted as a co-founder? You would then need to have been his partner. You can get credit for doing all the work and for coming up with the idea, but I think that only those who own the project can be counted as founders of the thing they develop. To be a co-founder is a legal issue and not a moral one. This is how I see it. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further. None of you know anything about this. See http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html --Larry Sanger 13:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Larry I'm sorry but I'm going to revert and remove your name from being called "the founder of wikipedia," I think you helped facilitate growth of wikipedia. Also what's the big the issue with the ratemyprofessors.com link with your profile on it?
I know a lot about the founding of wikipedia Mr. Sanger. --Trulexicon 04:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
That's definitely not "NPOV". Michael Hardy 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I've talked Jimbo on the IRC channel in the past about it and I believe his account of the founding of Wikipedia. I'm willing to look at your side Professor Sanger and I hope this issue is resolved.--Trulexicon 04:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the best thing to do right now is not to take an official position on this, but rather say that Larry disputes Jimbo's claim of being the sole founder of the Wikipedia and claims himself to be the co-founder of Wikipedia based on [fill-in his arguments]. It would be good if Larry and Jimbo would keep a constructive dialogue between themselves and come to an agreement. I think you should give it a shot, Larry. It's your move. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think we haven't given it a shot several times? I would prefer that you say not that I dispute Jimbo's claim, but that Jimmy has changed the official position of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, as the first three project press releases, all of which I believe were posted and approved by Jimmy himself, credited both of us as founders. This and other embarrassing facts can be found on http://www.larrysanger.org/roleinwp.html . Anyway, that really is the last I'll have to say on this subject here. --Larry Sanger 00:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is an inconsistency in the press releases, then that should perhaps be investigated for itself, but I don't see why it bothers you to discuss this subject on Wiki. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
For the next several years, I and dozens of other people will periodically question the significance of your contributions to a large project you worked on. Virtually none of us will have been present during that stage of the project, few of us will really be well-acquainted with what happened. No amount of re-explaining the same points over and over will settle the issue. I expect you to be willing to discuss this any time any of us bring it up, even when we are just rehashing things that have been said many times before and even when there is no indication that any of us are actually listening to you. If you refuse, I will express disbelief. — Aluvus t/c 21:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Aluvus, that's an incredibly foolish thing to say, and a perfect example of the presumption and arrogance I absolutely hate about some Wikipedians--a feature happily lacking among most Citizens, who are a little more mature. --Larry Sanger 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that your seeking to claim the high ground on maturity is itself a particularly mature act (though of course, that kind of statement invites a recursive counter-statement). And some of the conduct of people associated with the Citizendium project (including, it must be said, yourself) does make me question some of the virtues that you tout. But this is really not the ideal forum to discuss such matters. — Aluvus t/c 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that Wikipedia still hasn't changed. Sad. --Larry Sanger 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposition that "To be a co-founder is a legal issue and not a moral one." For that reason, I don't think the question of who paid who's salary has much relevance to this particular question. The question is who came up with ideas and pursued them. Michael Hardy 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

...as an example, last time I checked, the article on Seymour Geisser stated that he founded the School of Statistics at the University of Minnesota. Obviously he didn't pay for it out of his own pocket; it's a state university that was paying him a salary. This sort of thing is pretty standard within universities. Michael Hardy 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. A week ago I emailed both Larry and Jimbo and encouraged them to start a dialogue over the issue and discuss the moral aspect of Larry's claim. Jimbo replied, but Larry didn't. Larry must realize that his only chance of finding a compromise to this disagreement is by communicating with Jimbo. I don't think it would help him much by advertising his position on Wikipedia. As for your analogy, I don't think it fits this case too well because those who are credited for founding universities or any other kind of institutions--or in the past, even settlements--were assigned to do so and their mission was clearly described to them. In the case of Larry, he seems to be at the mercy of Jimbo, whom the latter holds a monopoly in representing Wikipedia to the media. His word weights heavier than Larry's word. Larry's only concrete argument is the pressreleases which are said to mention Larry as a co-founder. I don't think I've heard Jimbo explaining the meaning of those pressreleases, but from what I understood from Jimbo, he is willing to credit Larry for every contribution that he has made to Wikipedia and Larry's legacy. I also suggested that Larry could be credited for designing Wikipedia and to be given the title of "designer." My analogies included two examples where I compared Wikipedia to a videogame where Jimbo is the publisher and Larry the gamedeveloper; and where Wikipedia is a newly discovered science where Jimbo is the paying company and Larry the scientist making the discovery. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Huh? People who found universities have their mission handed to them by some other person? What makes you think that's true? Michael Hardy 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mike--excellent argument by analogy, a sort which simply never had occurred to me. --Larry Sanger 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article history

Larry, I see that the edit history for planning statistical research identifies you as the initial author, and labels that initial edit as "minor". For you to write the initial article on such a subject seems out of character (I could be wrong, though), and labeling the initial edit "minor" seems odd, and I seem to recall that you have been erroneously identified in such histories as the initial author of several other articles. Do you know if there's some reason for that? Michael Hardy 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly due to the fact that the early months of WP article histories were deleted. We didn't start saving all edit histories until, I don't know, summer or fall of 2001 I think. --Larry Sanger 04:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC) (who should be spending this time on [2] :-) )

Reliable history only dates back to December of 2001. In the early days history often got purged to free up space in the database. Manning 16:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Sanger

Mr. Sanger, I have a question for you..do you think that the ratemyprofessors.com link I put in your article is a BLP violation? Be honest with me...

If you do think it is (and if you feel strongly about it) I will remove it. I added it to your article, because I wanted to show people you are a full fledged professor Mr. Sanger.--Trulexicon 04:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No big deal. It will be removed anyways per relevance and whatsthepointanyways?? Thanks, --Tom 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was kindly asking Professor Sanger, it has a lot of relevance to the article as it is a discusses Sanger's teaching style, etc. It also humanizes Professor Sanger in my humble opinon.--Trulexicon 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop provoking the man. What's your problem, anyway? Did he give you a bad grade? --Thus Spake Anittas 06:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't assume this editor has any higher education. Thanks you. --Tom 14:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy vs. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion

  • Greatings! I'm the alleged disruptive editor at Philosophy about whom you've had discussions some time ago.
  • It turns out that it's relatively easier writing articles for the second - controversial - topic than it is for abstract Philosophy - where I was considered "disruptive."
  • Anyway, I thought I'd drop you a line to see if you remember discussing my alleged disruptive "conduct" regarding Philosophy.
  • By the way, the main issue there and then was whether "rational" was a useful adjective to modify Philosophy. I subscribed to the negative position.
  • Cheers. --Ludvikus 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The link that no longer works

I think this is the link that no longer works. It seems that the article was removed as early as August 2005. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the one. Sort of an early version of "Why Wikipedia Must Jettison its Anti-Elitism." --Larry Sanger 00:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A question about Citizendium

I have spent a little time on Citizendium, and some of its articles are already at a higher level of quality than Wikipedia's articles on the same subject. Can we use content from Citizendium on Wikipedia, providing we attribute it to the original source? Or does Citizendium's license forbid this? Thanks in advance. Terraxos 02:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The Citizendium's lack of a set license currently forbids the use of articles that we ourselves have originated. Articles that are marked as being sourced from Wikipedia--which have the notice "Some content on this page may previously have appeared on Wikipedia" at the bottom of the page--may of course be transferred back to Wikipedia, since we have released our versions under the GFDL (as we are required to do). We will be announcing a decision about the license for our original articles very soon--by the end of the week, should be. I'm sorry to say that it is unlikely to be the GFDL, but there is still a chance of that. There is a better chance of CC-by-sa or CC-by-nc-sa. --Larry Sanger 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please sign

Dear Larry Sanger,

Please sign my autograph page  —Preceding comment was added at 03:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar from another user

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for many great contributions to wikipedia 1bookfan 03:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GeekSpeak

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GeekSpeak, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of GeekSpeak. Jfire (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of GeekSpeak

I have nominated GeekSpeak, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeekSpeak. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't create that article. You (and the whole AfD system) are confused. --Larry Sanger (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Citizendium

Hello, I have a few questions about Citizendium. I have been looking around it lately and the whole site seems to have messages trying to assert how they are better than Wikipedia. And have you ever thought about something like core articles, articles which are essential to any encyclopedia? I am currently living in Mongolia, and when I type Mongolia, or Genghis Khan into the searchbox, the only thing that turns up is "Inner Mongolia" --TheNamer (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)