Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 3

Citizendium comparison

The goal is to find a contrast for the statement "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles." about Citizendium. This has nothing (directly) to do with consensus versus truth; it's merely a matter of process. Citizendium has formal peer review and Wikipedia does not. Wikipedia's disclaimers make this very clear, and if you can't cite them as references then I'm not sure what you can cite about Wikipedia's formal organization. Rvcx (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to restore sourced information. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. This is the "exact quotes" from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The comparison between Citizendium and Wikipedia is about process, not philosophy. Citizendium's process involves formal peer review by established authorities; Wikipedia's does not. This is not a value judgement about which is better, and stating these verifiable facts does not mandate a discussion of theoretical consequences of these differences in process (which I think is very badly described by the "truth versus consensus" distinction, anyway). If you want to add a separate section on consensus versus truth then feel free to try, but don't try to shoehorn it into a statement of verifiable fact in order to promote Wikipedia's "philosophy". 129.67.151.47 (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to restore the sourced information. Me thinks we should use reliable sources instead of less than reliable sources such as a disclaimer from Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

CZ has a formal review process, not consensus. WIkipedia has a difference kind of review process. Wikipedia process is anyone who has internet access. Consensus is made by anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Whether or not Wikipedia "seeks consensus, not truth" is just not relevant and reads as completely out of place in this article. The statement about Citizendium is that it has formal peer review. The relevant fact about Wikipedia is that it does not. If you're going to argue for "consensus not truth" then please explain how that is more relevant than the text I have proposed. Rvcx (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As for sources, Wikipedia's disclaimer is a primary source on Wikipedia's editing procedure. Note that the parallel Citizendium reference is to that project's official policy. If you have additional references for the (obvious and non-contentious) fact that Wikipedia does not have formal review then feel free to add them. Rvcx (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We can't use Wikipedia's disclaimer as a reliable source when we have better sources currently in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this change. Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth is widely known among Wikipedians and outside viewers. QuackGuru (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. QuackGuru (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted from user talk: inaccurate & POV claim about Wikipedia vs Citizendium

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth

I noticed your edit to Larry Sanger. Wikipedia does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus". To prove this point, take a look at the history of this article. Editors are deleting sourced material without any logical objection. According to your edit summary at Larry Sanger, Wikipedia is flawed. Maybe you are right!. QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, let it be known that I won't comment your behaviour in this issue so far - I've already expressed my opinion about that - I will only reply to what you are saying in this specific post.

You say: " Wikipedia does not respect truth or facts or sourced material. Editors can delete anything they want from an article by just saying "no consensus" "

No, editors won't just say "no consensus" - they will argue on the talk page or in edit summaries, either that it isn't really "truth or facts", or that the "sourced material" isn't adequately sourced. If many argue so, then there is in fact no consensus. This is, as far as I can see, the case in the conflict that you cited, too, as people are in disagreement e.g. about the interpetation of specific Wikipedia policies regarding pseudoscience. And this shows the flaw in your regarding of consensus and truth as alternatives. In this situation as elsewhere, people aren't seeking consensus as opposed to truth, they are seeking consensus about the truth, i.e. they are seeking the truth through consensus.

Again - discussion and consensus are a means to establish what the truth is. They are not an alternative to truth as you present it. Eating pizza is not an alternative to digesting carbohydrates.

Since you're a side in the dispute you linked to, you're naturally assuming that your position is identical to "THE truth" (as opposed to consensus, i.e. to the position of the majority who disagree with you). However the fact is that there is no way for other people to know that. "The truth" is that you can't get "The Truth" pre-cooked anywhere in the world. You always get opinions about the truth, and you always need to decide which of these opinions is true. When people have different opinions, there are two possible ways to establish "the real truth". They may discuss and reach consensus about it. Or they may ask a person with authority to tell them what is true. It is a matter of personal opinion which way of "cooking" is best, but putting the question in the way you're doing it (Consensus or Truth?) is like saying that "The United States is based on democracy, not on good government" or "Jim is a nigger, not a human". It is inherently and totally non-neutral, because it implies that democracy can never be a good form of government, that black people can't also be humans, and that the truth can never be established by means of discussion/consensus.

But even this is not the whole story, your wording is not only inherently non-neutral, but also doubly misleading, because it also suggests that Wikipedia determines the truth by consensus, (as opposed to Citizendium, which determines it by expert authority). While Citizendium does indeed set out to determine truth by expert authority as opposed to external reliable sources, Wikipedia is not merely the opposite of Citizendium. Contrary to Stephen Colbert's ramblings, Wikipedians do not determine by consensus the truth itself, they determine by consensus what has been claimed about the truth by reliable sources (hence the real principle WP:Verifiability, not truth, as opposed to the mock principle - *WP:Consensus, not truth). There is still room for discussion, because just as people have different opinions about what is true, so they have different opinions about which source is reliable, which sourced fact is relevant for the article, and how to interpret various more specific policies. This is, again, precisely the case in the conflict that you linked to.

But note that even if it wasn't, that wouldn't be any evidence about Wikipedia's general principles, but rather of their violation that may occur in practice. Your wording misleadingly suggests that it is presenting the official principle of Wikipedia. And indeed, since the article describes the official principles of Citizendium, it would be both natural and fair for it to contrast them with the official principles of Wikipedia, not with their violations. The source for the official principles of Wikipedia can only be Wikipedia's policy pages and not Stephen Colbert's or Oliver Kamm's highly unqualified impressions, or your own (or, for that matter, my own) original research based on our personal experience with Wikipedia. Otherwise, one could easily say that Wikipedia's "real", practical principle is, say, "the most obstinate and least employed person wins", and I don't want to imagine what the "real" practical principle of Citizendium could turn out to be in the long run.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This post is completely irrelevant and shows that you haven't understood or even read anything of what I've written above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here are the exact quotes from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The source is both unreliable and demonstrably wrong, as argued in detail above.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Read this comment. I made a proposal on a talk page and another editor wants me to show him how could there possibly be consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, that's not true, you're misrepresenting the context (it was your own fault that you mis-placed your proposal in the sequence where people were discussing whether there was consensus or not; your opponents on that talk page are discussing the merits of the proposals of your side, rather than vetoing them by misciting WP:Consensus, as you claim). Second, even if it were true - as I pointed out above, your original research about specific editors' (mis-)behaviour can't be a source for Wikipedia's policy. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

All in all, your replies above show that you've decided to play deaf and the only way in which I could force you to stop this game is by edit warring and looking for allies. Since I don't have the time to do this, you win. As I said, this is a typical Wikipedia situation, and shows a major flaw in the project. And again as I said, it's ironic that you are convincingly proving your Citizendium-ist point (that Wikipedia sucks) simply by personally making it suck. I won't read any of your further posts, because I want to spare my nerves. I will, however, post this exchange on the article talk page, in the hope that my argument may eventually be read and taken into account by others.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting debate, but not relevant to the recent edits in question. There is no need to dive into philosophical differences (all of which are exceedingly hard to verify, anyway). We can restrict ourselves in this article to differences in process, which *are* verifiable. 129.67.151.47 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth according to the reliable sources. I think we should not use Wikipedia's disclaimer when we have more reliable sources presented. QuackGuru (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with 91.148.159.4: QuackGuru doesn't even seem to be reading what others have written. Rvcx (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained before, we can't use Wikipedia's disclaimer as a reliable source when we have better sourcing available. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Citizendium do not try to provide truth. On Wikipedia, we seek consensus. On Citizendium, they don't seek consensus like Wikipedia does. On CZ, they have gentle expert review. QuackGuru (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Is "Wikipedia seeks consensus, not truth" relevant?

In comparing Wikipedia with Citizendium, the statement is that "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles." A discussion of consensus versus truth seems out of place here---shouldn't be just contrast this Citizendium process with Wikipedia's process which does not involve approval by experts and does not produce "stable" articles? Wikipedia primarily disclaimer makes these points very clearly, although I'm sure there is a mountain of reliable sources for such assertions. Rvcx (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm here following an RfC link, and 2: Don't bite the new guy (me). First I think that much of the content you're asking for comments on belongs on either a Citizendium or Wikipedia article (not a WP:BLP), or better yet, a "How Wiki is different from Citz". Since this is a BIO, I'm not sure it's really the best place for these comparisons. Second. the statements made in that section: ex: "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, "approved" articles.[95] Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth.[96][97]", are really opinion rather than fact. I read the references, and although they come from respectable news sources, they seem to be OP-ED pieces rather than news reporting. Especially when you say "Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth", that's a very tough thing to get through. It's very subjective. Wikipedia does have Policy and guidelines which state that controversial statements must be backed by "verifiable" sources. If the statements made are direct quotes from Sangler, then that's one thing, but if it's said as conclusion that's been reached by someone else, it doesn't belong (in my opinion). I think you'll see this link (WP:OR) by more experienced wikipedians than I. As always, that's just my humble opinion. Ched (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

perhaps: Wikipedia attempts to provide truth through consensus and verifiability vs. Citizendum attempts to present truth through expert opinion? ... Ched (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the article as a whole, I completely agree with Ched's point: the point we've been arguing isn't about biography, and it's not even about Larry Sanger. The entry for Citizendium addresses the differences between it and Wikipedia; unless particular points are directly related to Larry Sanger's life/personality/role it's silly to try to summarize that content here. The section of founding Citizendium is directly relevant to Sanger; the section on an abstract comparison of the two projects was not, so I've removed it. Rvcx (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Where did "Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth, which only means, really, that even if you know something to be true, you cannot include it unless there are reliable sources to verify it. There is no valid reason to remove this section from the biography. His notability is tied in to these two projects and a comparison of them directly relates to him, as he played a major role in developing both. The RFC, however, is out of place. لennavecia 15:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your confusion over "consensus not truth"---this was the phrase that got my editing the article. But In truth the previous section covers Sanger's motivations for creating Citizendium as an alternative to Wikipedia perfectly well; I don't see any major points of the "Wikipedia vs. Citizendium" section that haven't already been addressed. An actual comparison of the two projects (as they are now) is definitely related and interesting, but it's a big topic, it's about far more than just Sanger, and it's controversial enough to need good editing. The nonsense back-and-forth here over "consensus not truth" is just proof that this content is much better maintained on the Citizendium page. It makes sense to restrict Sanger's bio to historical data only, which includes his motivations and direct quotations from him, but not inferences about abstract philosophies of two projects gleaned from newspaper op-eds. Rvcx (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, then that's a problem you have with Wikipedia, but the article is written within policy. If there are unnecessary redundancies, that's something we can work out. And there isn't a "nonsense back-and-forth here over 'consensus not truth'". The article quoted misrepresents our policies in its wording, but that is not a reason to remove the entire section from this article. It's directly related to Sanger. لennavecia 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, since I'm here anyway, I'm going to claim right of wp:bold and offer my edit. I defend the edit with wp:syn, and wp:npov. Please assume good faith. Ched (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC) That's my best shot, short of getting real "wordy" or verbose. Ched (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I restored sourced information. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-15. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. This is the "exact quotes" from the source. There were some other changes to the section that I think did not improve the sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It wasn't clear to me that it was an "exact quote" from the format (other than the quote from Sanger himself). I didn't remove and sources, and simply tried to offer a more WP:NPOV to text that appeared to me to be WP:SYN. I suppose I'll learn as I go along. Ched (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes are from an author at The Times. When it is referenced and directly relevant it can't possibly be SYN. QuackGuru (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why my second edit was "Lol", but I'll try 1 last time to offer an improvement. Ched (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm told they are quotes, but when I put quotation marks on the statements, it's reverted with an edit summary of "They are not quotes" "these are not quotes". While I'm familiar with all the Jimbo/Larry stuff, and have read a lot of both sides - I guess it requires more in-depth study for me to edit successfully on this particular topic. "it was an 'exact quote'" ... and "these are not quotes" ... more of a conundrum than I can sort through at the moment. I am really at a loss here, I don't understand what the RFC was intended for. Ched (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Ched (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The whole second half of this article is a mess; it outlines Sanger's motivations for creating Citziendium in several redundant ways of varying quality. The last sub-section (the one under RfC) is the poorest presentation of the redundant information: is puts forwards Sanger's motivations---as well as personal interpretations of Wikipedia---as fact about both of the projects. I don't see this as a NPOV issue (I see certain aspects of the current presentation as negatively misrepresenting both projects), it's just a matter of article quality.

The sentence "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth." is the most egregious example; almost every word is wrong. The fact that "Wikipedia seeks" anything is completely unverifiable. Wikipedia is a project and thus does not "seek" anything. Its leaders may have certain goals, and these may or may not overlap with those of the editor community, but you can't ascribe these motivations to the project itself without giving some kind of definition of what entity the term "Wikipedia" is meant to represent. Obviously "consensus" is incorrect: the project leaders seek verifiability (among other things). One might contend that the result of Wikipedia process is consensus and not truth, but that's highly contentious and far from established fact. I have no idea what definition we're using for "truth", but it seems ridiculous to think that any community member wouldn't be seeking truth for some reasonable definition, or that Citizendium and Wikipedia differ in this respect. It is simply that Wikipedia is based on the notion of approximating some kind of truth via verifiability and wide consensus, and Citizendium is based on approximating it with peer review and consensus of domain experts. And of course "and not" is wrong as well, because it is possible to seek more than one thing at the same time.

QuackGuru has decided, however, that this page must remain exactly as is, which substantially de-motivates me to do a complete rewrite of the relevant sections. Rvcx (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I should also point out that "the quotes are from the Times" is more than a bit misleading. There are two possible sources listed for the maybe-quote "consensus not truth". The first is a paraphrase of a sentence written by a Oliver Kamm, a columnist and not a journalist, in an opinion piece, not a news story. His column did appear in the Times, however. The rest of the (mis)quoted sentence is "...and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." That's not news reporting.

The other possible source for the "quote" is given as the Telegraph, another British paper. But it's not the Telegraph writer who is being quoted---we've used the Telegraph as a source for a quote from Steven Colbert. Also not news reporting.

QuackGuru seems to believe that any text which appears in a newspaper is a reliable source. I'm looking forward to future edits based on Dave Barry and Garfield.

These issues have been brought up by other editors in the past, and the fact that every attempt to address them has been consistently reverted is a real embarrassment for Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has stated the issue much better than I could have. The only thing I could possibly add at this time is a confession that I feel that I've been suckered in, and made a fool of. Ched (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'm back. I'm apparently knee-deep anyway, so I may as well get in over my head. OK, I see now about not linking to policy in the articles - it was a newbie mistake, and I didn't realize that it shouldn't be done. I had assumed that it would be perfectly fine to link to relevant policy in an article, sorry. Next: I'm still not clear on what are quotes and what aren't, if the comparisons are quotes from some (outside wikipedia source, independent editor, or whatever we want to call an op-ed piece in a newspaper), then shouldn't they have quote marks on them? If they are a conclusion drawn by reading the (outside wikipedia) articles, doesn't that constitute wp:syn? Regarding the individual statement directly from the article and section: "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth.[96][97]" This is NOT what wikipedia policy says. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...", and the complete sentence goes on to clarify the meaning of this. It seems to me that pulling half sentences out of policy AND misquoting them at that, is not the way to add quality to an article.

I understand that wikipedia has its shortcomings, and I see a great deal of value in Citizendium. The web is a big place, and there's room for both. I don't have a problem with pointing out the faults that wikipedia has (if we see them, maybe we can fix them), but I don't understand attempts to run-down one site in order to make another look better. The whole comparison section below the Sanger quote just looks like it's so POV against wikipedia that I'm not sure what to do here. I can accept that I'm not qualified to edit this article, but surely there is a better alternative to what's on the page now. And I do honestly want to express my thanks to Jennavecia for taking the time to explain why my edits were not accepted. I truly pray that any of my efforts here have not contributed to any ill feelings or frustration. I think I'll stop right here, and see what comes of it. - Ched (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the only text that didn't survive the re-organization was the "Experts in their field of expertise guide the Citizendium project to create stable, approved articles. Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth." I was actually planning on incorporating this, but following the references I couldn't find the statement about Citizendium to be anything more than WP:SYN: the word "stable" never even appears in the Citizendium policy cited. The phrase "consensus not truth" may be catchy, but it doesn't seem at all relevant to Larry Sanger (I don't see any quotes from him making this comparison), and more importantly the consensus is that "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is simply false. Rvcx (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx claims: I was actually planning on incorporating this,..." but Rvcx has repeatedly tried to delete the text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The text as written is blatantly wrong, meaning that it is not verifiable. Given how attached you are to this bizarre mis-statement, I was expecting to include a sentence along the lines of "Others have argued that Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth", which is verifiable (but of questionable relevance, since these opinions are not attributable to Sanger). Rvcx (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was previously explained the text is relevant and sourced. If you think the word "stable" is unsourced you could of just removed the word stable and not delete the entire sentence. The consensus and not truth part is sourced and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

None of it is verifiable based on the reference given. It is entirely WP:SYN. Rvcx (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Excellence work on a difficult topic. My compliments on a job well done. Both sides are represented in a fair and balanced evenly distributed manner. — Ched (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was not a job well done. Removing sections and mixing up section is not a job well done. "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is referenced. Rvcx claims it is false. When the text it referenced it is verified. See WP:V. Wikipedia does not decide truth. Wikipedia seeks verifiable and not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions I suppose. "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is absolutely false. Please read the WP:V section a little closer. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. If we are to use policy and guidelines properly, we must understand the entire sentence, not just bits and pieces.

Now, if you are saying that someone else said "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth", may I ask why you removed my quote marks from the text when I tried to clarify this?

If you think it is misquoting then why would you add quotes to misquoted text. If there was any misquoting it was adding quotes to text there were not quotes. It was misleading to add quotes when the text was not quoting anyone. QuackGuru (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to quote Wikipedia policy. I am writing text according to reliable references presented.

The text in the article were not quotes. It was rewritten. Why are you asking about the quotes you added when it was previously explained to you they were not quotes.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here are the exact text from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to Wikipedia twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. This was a job poorly done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We mention his role in Wikipedia twice in the lead, and now hadn't mentioned his present role in Citizendium anywhere in the lead. Rvcx (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the overlinking and redudancy in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be slightly more honest to describe this as reverting other people's edits. Including restoring numerous grammar and language problems. Rvcx (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started another project. The text is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the editorializing. We can't draw our own conclusions. QuackGuru (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Read what you just wrote. It makes absolutely no conclusions; it paraphrases Sanger's statement that another online encyclopedia would be worthwhile. Not that Sanger should be the one to create it. Sanger's full quote followed immediately after: "If we can create a more reliable and free encyclopedia...then we should". This quote actually goes farther than the summary in that it uses "we", which one could argue suggests that Sanger saw a role for himself in such a project.

Citizendium v. Wikipedia

If anyone thinks it is notable we can create a new article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's notable at all. Certainly not warranting its own article. لennavecia 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If an editor has the time it can be worked on in a sandbox. There are potentially a lot of sources that cover this topic. QuackGuru (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this guy would ever dream of trying to rival wikipedia. How he thinks he can recruit "experts" on all fields of knowledge to check the work beats me. In the end it will create a huge backlog of articles to check and "confirm reliability" - if people want a "reliable" web encyclopedia why not use Britannica. I just think people should be concentrating on making this encyclopedia better not starting others. He has a point though about professionalism and the image that wikipedia has been created by kids. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the bulk of Dr. Blofeld's comment; however, I do appreciate Sanger's "dream" of trying a different approach. Nupedia was once just a dream too, but through brilliant css and various markup language (and editors contributions) - wikipedia has moved to the top of search results in so many search terms. I do agree with the perception (of non-editors) that wikipedia is written by vandals, children, or ill-informed people. I just started editing, and it has been a real eye-opener for me. There do seem to be a lot of battleground and bureaucratic tactics that go in to the end result; but, I've actually found the end result to be a very informative resource to start a research project.

Getting back to the Sanger article at hand. I've noticed that multiple editors have come and gone in an effort to improve the quality of this particular BLP. It appears to me that a minority of editors are able to impose their will through reverts and sarcastic comments in an effort to maintain a particular bias against wikipedia. Going beyond the obvious "bite the hand that feeds you" mindset, it's almost as if the article wants to throw a "Here's what people are saying is wrong with wikipedia" article in the face of the readers. I completely understand that a Sanger article may extol the virtues of Citizendium (and that's fine), but there are so many out of context quotes, and para-phrases, and essays posted here that it (the article) seems to lose focus on the effort to provide a biography of an individual. First: I would think that a whole Citizendium v. Wikipedia section would have to come across as comparing apples to oranges crab-apples. Second: If one were to attempt such a comparison, it would belong in a Citizendium or Wikipedia article, NOT a BLP. Note: I have no problem with Sanger personal reflections, they pertain to him, and DO belong - I object to the parts of OP-ED pieces that mis-quote actual Wikipedia policy, (in a poor man's attempt to gather notability) being presented in a fact-like manner to mislead the reader into believing skewed or false information. At best, I think (after reading policy and guidelines) that the bulk of the bottom half of this article (including the links to essays and presentations) would belong over at the criticisms of wikipedia article, and removed from here. Ched (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no attempt to quote Wikipedia policy. It would be inappropriate to try to quote Wikipedia policy in this case when we have more reliable sources available. It is better to report what reliable sources present. QuackGuru (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists

For future reference: WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists is a good guideline for possible changes should they be attempted soon. — Ched (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The same as the select writing section the bullted text is easier to read. When it is difficult to find or read the comparison section the bulleted text is better for this particluar case. The C versus W section was removed again against conensus. It was attempted to be removed in the past too without consensus.[1][2][3] QuackGuru (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back QuackGuru. I have to leave shortly to attend our City Council meeting, but will be glad to discuss this point further when I return. But before I go let me mention. 1.) the C vs. W section was not removed: It was reformatted to a preferred MOS. As far as consensus, I will have to debate that. Your personal preferences do not constitute consensus. There have been several editors who have come and gone in an effort to work with you, and explain the line of reasoning. I will try to work with you as well. — Ched (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained my line of reasoning. It was explained before the text is relevant. When it is difficult to read it is sometimes better to have bullted text. QuackGuru (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The reformat makes it difficult to find the text. Relevant text was deleted against consensus. The text was restored. The text was restored again. The text was restored yet again. The deleted text is relevant. When the text was reformatted sourced text was deleted again. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - reposting)

(copied from above for continuity)

I am not trying to quote Wikipedia policy. I am writing text according to reliable references presented. The text in the article were not quotes. It was rewritten. Why are you asking about the quotes you added when it was previously explained to you they were not quotes. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds"

• . The Times. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2267665.ece
• . Retrieved on 7 January 2009. "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." Here are the exact text from the source. QuackGuru (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinking to Wikipedia twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. This was a job poorly done. QuackGuru (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started another project. The text is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK ... Now I think I understand the confusion here. When I say quote - I was referring to quoting the article text - not quoting in the sense that Larry Sanger said "bla bla bla". What I was trying to get across was ... John Doe of the NY Times wrote "x is equal to y".

If you try to present the whole "consensus not truth" argument because a writer in an editorial wrote that - then that statement (especially in this case because it is wrong) ... should be in quotes and attributed to the person and newspaper who wrote that.

As far as the overlinking and such, well, let's everyone look at it and we'll see if we can make it better. Rivx put a lot of time and research into keeping all the material that was here, organizing it, referencing it, and formatting it. I think he/she did a great job myself. Nothing has to be declared final, or complete - there's always room for improvement, and I think it's only fair to acknowledge a person's efforts. As such, I will say I appreciate you coming here and presenting your side of things in a calm and intelligent manner. I GREATLY appreciate that QuackGuru. — Ched (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As previously explained, there is consensus to keep the sourced text.

Ched claimed "When I say quote - I was referring to quoting the article text" but the text in the article was not quoting the article and was not misquoting because the text were not quotes. If an editor disagrees what reliable sources present we should keep in mind the text is verifiable, not truth. We don't seek truth and Wikipedia. We seek verifiable. See WP:V.

Ched wrote: "As far as the overlinking and such, well, let's everyone look at it and we'll see if we can make it better." The way to make it better is to remove the overlinking.

Claiming that Sanger's criticisms conlcuded him to start another Enclopedia is a not a greatt job. It is inappropriate and no reason has been given to keep it in the article.

On something simple as overlinking and redundancy in the lead I don't see any reason not to fix it. The article has been turned upside down and a lot of strange edits made. It was not organizing to me. According to Ched: "Nothing has to be declared final, or complete..." That means there is no consensus for the substantial changes. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, First let me ask you, what do you believe has been deleted from the article? And, what do you think is over-linked?

I have some suggestions for the lead, and if we agree - we can change it. ;). — Ched (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ched wrote: "Ok, First let me ask you, what do you believe has been deleted from the article? And, what do you think is over-linked?"

I have previously explained what is overlinked in the lead. I previously provided links what was deleted from the article.

In any event, I restored the text that was deleted and organized the article. I hope you like the great work. QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru - I STRONGLY urge you to revert your last edit. You have effectively restored an earlier version of article. This kind of action could possibly lead to problems. I am more than happy to work with you if you want to work on this article, but this kind of action is not the way to go about working with other editors to improve things. Getting angry and simply reverting the article is not the way to work productively. I'm sure you can add a lot of great edits and valuable insight. Please reconsider your actions. — Ched (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The work I did was organizing the article. This version is somewhat different than an older version. The previous substanbtial changes were not appropriate. The text was deleted against consensus. * The text was restored by SDJ. The text was restored by Jennavecia. The text was restored by SqueakBox. The text was restored by QuackGuru. There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. There is consensus to keep the consensus tidbit and no specific objection has been made to the improvements. My edits were very productive. QuackGuru (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely you realize that when another editor looks at this diff, they most likely see it as vandalism. Changing around a few words won't mask what you are doing. This version clearly had the items you claim to be restoring in the Citizendium and Criticism of Wikipedia sections. I ask you one last time to please restore the original version, and let us move forward from there. Edit wars benefit no one. If we work together we can both become better editors. I implore you not to take this path, please turn back while you still can. — Ched (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I included text from both versions. The way I organized the article was productive and a great improvement over all previous versions. No specific objection was been made to the current version. I fixed the overlinking and redudancy in the lead. The current organization of sections is easier to read. The text was restored by SDJ. The text was restored by Jennavecia. The text was restored by SqueakBox. The text was restored by QuackGuru. There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. As previously explained, the text is relevant and has consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many editors at this article have had difficulties with various versions. I'll need to disengage myself for a short time here. Thinking about one's actions is free, I'm going to indulge myself. I suggest you may wish to do the same. — Ched (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Many editors have difficulties when sourced text was deleted.[4][5] [6] QuackGuru (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O Requesting Third Opinion

The primary diff is here

• The disagreement is around how the Citizendium v Wikipedia is presented. Via a bulleted list, or paragraph form.
• Included is the information that should be presented, and how it should be displayed as showing NPOV
• Secondary disagreement is around reverting and trying to work out a compromise on the talk page (unsuccessful)

Brought to WP:3O by — Ched (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC) User talk:QuackGuru notified — Ched (talk) 07:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Since a page was pulled out of history, and used to overwrite the existing page, I'm not really sure how much was lost. I am guessing the page was pulled from around January 10 or January 16. Since edits were quickly made to it, even judging file size makes it difficult to pinpoint the specific edits that were lost. I'd ask the person who is providing the 3O to also please note that I originally came to this page on an RfC, and attempted to compromise and assist with the article. (Jan. 15 and 16). Each edit was reverted, which is fine. I am still at a loss on the reasoning behind the quotes / not quotes. I also feel the material that is presented (as it is in it's current state) is very POV. Below the Sanger quote in the section Citizendium v. Wikipedia. My reasoning is that the bulleted list is presented as factual rather than observations and opinions from editorial pieces. Specifically, the second line, second comparison. As it is listed now: "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" This is factually wrong. From WP:V we find the entire sentence to be: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."

• Comment I don't mind people pointing out Wikipedia faults (it helps us improve). Personally I think that bulleted list belongs in the Wikipedia criticisms, article rather than a BLP - but I'm not even pressing that point. In fact, when User:Rivx incorporated all the information into paragraph form, I complimented his work, and was happy to accept it at that. In the paragraph form (before the QuackGuru edits) at least it was clear that they were observations from other sources. — Ched (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ched stated: "I am still at a loss on the reasoning behind the quotes / not quotes." The text in the article were not quotes and I do not understand why anyone would ever think the text were quotes. It was previously explained to Ched the text was not quotes.

Ched claims: "In fact, when User:Rivx incorporated all the information into paragraph form, I complimented his work, and was happy to accept it at that." But the edits made by Rvcx deleted source text.

Deleting sourced text was not incorporting all the information. All the information was not incorporated when some of the sourced text was deleted. Rvcx was previously notified about the controversial edits.

The part about the consensus and not truth was restored by various editors.[7][8] [9] It is inappropriate to request a third opinion about the consensus and not truth part when there has been discussion by more than a few editors on it. A third opinion is for when there is only two editors involved.

On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The text in the article accurately reflects the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your links in the first part point to edits on the 15th prior to the RfC which prompted me to attempt to edit this page. I am asking for a third opinion about the edits on the 30th. I am familiar with the timesonline.co.uk article. Could you please show me what sourced information was deleted from the edits on the 30th. As I've read through this talk page, I've seen at least 4 editors attempt to change the information - 3 have not responded since debating you at length, and Rivx made a AGF attempt on the 30th to improve the article. I posted a link to policy which supported his/her edits. Please show what information from this version was missing that required you to do a wholesale change to a page from history. — Ched (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand you think edits like this are good faith attempts at improvements but editors disagree with the controversial editing.

I have previously explained the organization of the article was better before and I already explained the consensus and not truth part was deleted. There were multiple problems with strange mixing of sections and misplacing of information. I cleaned up the lead and removed overlinking. Wikilinking to Wikipedia twice in the lead is overlinking. Mentioning he is editor-in-chief of Citizendium twice in the lead is redundant. "Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia led him to conclude that another encyclopedia project would be worthwhile" is drawing our own conclusion as to why he started Citizendium. We cannot claim to know why he started another project. There are quotes in the article from Sanger that explains his views. The current version is easier to read and the sections are well organized.

Jennavecia stated: "Where did "Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth, which only means, really, that even if you know something to be true, you cannot include it unless there are reliable sources to verify it. There is no valid reason to remove this section from the biography. His notability is tied in to these two projects and a comparison of them directly relates to him, as he played a major role in developing both. The RFC, however, is out of place."[10]

I agree a comparison directly relates to Larry Sanger and plays a major role in his notability. QuackGuru (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of my initial problem was a statement you made on 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC) on this talk page that "This is the "exact quotes" from the source.". At that point, I put quote marks around the "consensus not truth" statement in the article - you promptly reverted my edit saying that they weren't quotes. Now - moving on, you make the point: "Jennavecia stated: "Where did "Wikipedia seeks consensus not truth" come from? It's Verifiability, not truth" - you do realize that this is making my point exactly.

You state that you are making the article better, I disagree with your last decision to pull an article out of history and replace the current article. May I ask, did you read WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists before you reverted all those edits yesterday? I admit, you have a very good ability to copy and paste text, But I don't believe that is the best way to improve the quality of an article, and serve the community.

I would imagine quite a few editors would have simply reverted your reverts from yesterday, and tagged you with a notice. I have not reverted you (yet), and hope you will still reconsider undoing your last revert. and - Again I ask you, exactly what information was "missing" from the edits on Jan 30th. — Ched (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bulleted text reads easier. The reformatting it into a paragraph become difficult to even find the comparison. I previously explained what information was missing from the article. I do not understand why you continue to ask me the same questions when I have replied and explained before. QuackGuru (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The bulleted text has been reformatted into a paragraph form. QuackGuru (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

organizational break 1

I hope you accept that I am attempting to make this article better. As Jimbo once said himself when it comes to BLPs (and I paraphrase rather than dig up the exact quote) We must get it right. It's not just because the information you propose is a defamation of Wikipedia, but because I believe that your last revert is a step in the wrong direction. It's pulled piecemeal from articles that are editorial in nature, and presented as a factual representation of the comparison. — Ched (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No specfic objection has been made to the recent improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I object— Ched (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not improvements. — Ched (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my question. — Ched (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel like a fool for being sucked in again. Several previous editors have argued with QuackGuru ad nauseum and the result was only ever an edit war as QuackGuru defended the existing article exactly as it is. When I first came to this article I thought "consensus not truth" was false. I tried deleting it. I tried rewriting it. I tried simply removing the entire section since I considered it redundant, but other editors liked some of the quotes from that section, even though they are largely just restatements of things Sanger is quoted as saying elsewhere in the article. So finally I re-organized the entire article to preserve every single quote. At this point, I don't think it's worth engaging QuackGuru. His opinion has been noted. Rvcx (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The controversial edits disorganized the entire article and deleted sourced text. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried (without success) to get the general ideas across to QuackGuru, but have not been able to reach an understanding. I agree whole heartedly with your efforts Rvcx, and given Sanger's place in Wikipedia - I believe this to be an important article to get right. I admit to being very frustrated at this point, but I will work to my best abilities to make this a better article. I wish that some of the negative items were not in the article, but I can't in clear conscience simply delete them because they are accurate and sourced. At least the last version you've worked on explained that they were the opinions of the respective editors. I got the impression that QuackGuru took my remark of thanks on your work as a slam at him somehow. It honestly wasn't meant that way - I simply appreciated your efforts. — Ched (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice to meet you by the way - wish it was under less trying circumstances. — Ched (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a complete mess. Some editors may not want to get involved when the article has been messed up like this. QuackGuru (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

regroup and refresh

Time to take another break and regroup, and refresh. I thank ALL editors here, I think we all have the same goal in mind - the best quality article we can make it. — Ched (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This was not a copyedit and was not minor. I don't think adding the extra wording is necessary. QuackGuru (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been drastically shortened and the article is very disorganized again. References in the lead are missing, the co-founder of Wikipedia is missing from the lead, and sourced text restored by different editors has been deleted again. The article is hard to follow and extremely disorganized. QuackGuru (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had until now refrained from doing major rewrites of text, instead just reorganizing to put redundant information together. But in the keeping with WP:BB I'm now trying to actually clean up the writing.

All the information from the old lead is available in the main article. What is appropriate in a lead is certainly debatable, but for a biographical article it makes sense to focus on who the person is, what they're notable for, and what they're doing now. One could argue that Sanger is also notable as a "Wikipedia critic", but that strikes me as pushing a particular POV. The TOC already includes a section for "criticism of Wikipedia", so such content is readily accessible.

The fact that Sanger is co-founder of wikipedia is well-established, but it seems silly to bend over backwards to put this particular wording in the lead; the wording I use matches that in the lead for Jimmy Wales.Rvcx (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This article previously went through a WP:GA review. The lead was too short before and was expanded in order to reach WP:GA status.

Nobody is bending over backwards to put co-founder in the lead. It was already in the lead. The silly part is bending over backwards to remove co-founder from the lead. Larry Sanger is most notable as co-founder of Wikipedia and has consensus to be in the lead. Drastically shortening the lead and moving information to different sections was very strange. QuackGuru (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Agreed that Sanger is mostable for being the co-founder of Wikipedia, so that should be in the lead. What else belongs in the lead and how long it should be, I will defer to others. --Tom 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)ps, in regards to Wales bio, even QG probably couldn't get co-founder into the lead, and that is saying something :) --Tom 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru (is it ok if I call you QG?). I have an idea, if you look at this link you'll see that I have been working on the article Study skills. It was up for deletion a week or so ago. Maybe if you and I took a break from this article and worked together a little bit to save and improve the article, we could get to understand each other's editing styles a little better. If you'd do that for me, I will promise not to make any more edits to this article without letting you know first. Could we do that and let things kind of calm down a little bit for a couple days? — Ched (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

<-- A note on the Rvcx comment, Given the line of work that both Larry and Jimbo have been in, it's reasonable to suggest that both of them choose their words very carefully, especially the written word. I would be totally shocked if anyone could find that Larry ever said "Consensus not truth". That said, I would hate to ever sit across the debate table from either one of them. Although I have come to have a new appreciation for Tendentious Editing lately ;) — Ched (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion. I see that there are now at least 4 editors involved in this discussion. As such, it falls outside of the scope of WP:Third opinion and I have, as a result, removed your request. If needed, please seek other avenues of WP:dispute resolution. Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 22:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb. 13, post page protection

this is an interesting edit. I'm curious about the questioning - It would appear that Sanger is indeed a critic of Wikipedia, so I'm not sure of the reasoning behind such an edit. — Ched (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. The controversial text is a WP:BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales stated Wikipedia should not be used as a primary source but we don't describe Wales as a critic. "Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation". The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 12, 2006. Retrieved 2009-02-12. {{cite news}}: Text "quote" ignored (help) QuackGuru (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the WP:BLP violation from the lead. It is an improvement to remove the BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This edit added ref citation but failed verifiaction again. This is a serious matter when the controversial text is a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV improvements

• The text was restored by SDJ.
• The text was restored by Jennavecia.
• The text was restored by SqueakBox.
• The text was restored by QuackGuru.
• There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. Most editors want to include the text. QuackGuru (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The text in the article accurately reflects the source presented.

There is clear consensus to include the text.[11][12][13][14] So I included it along with other improvements such as expanding the lead and the structure of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The section you address has been incorporated into the rest of the article, primarily the "Criticism of Wikipedia" section. If there is a particular statement or quotation that you feel has been lost, please identify it specifically instead of simply reverting the last month's edits.

Looking through the talk page, I can't find any other editors who agreed that "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is verifiable. Rvcx (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus to include it and Rvcx did not incorporate all the information. Some of the sentences were deleted against consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus to mention Wikipedia promotes consensus. Anyhow, this is a common fact. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD improvements

The lead has been drastically shortened without an adequate explanation. Several references were deleted without any good reason from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

QG, please don't be defensive of my comments. I'm sure we both simply want the article to be better. The links to previous reverts and such aren't really relevant since consensus can change. Your link to drastically shortened seems to be an expansion of the article content rather than "drastically shortened". Is it not accepted that Sanger is critical of Wikipedia? I'm not really sure what content or references you're wanting to add to the article. It appears that your efforts are indeed an attempt to provide sourced information in a valuable manner. How can we do this so that we are working together rather than arguing minor points? — Ched (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Improving the lead is not a minor point (at least to me). The lead was too short before and was expanded to reach WP:GA status. QuackGuru (talk) 09:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines for WP:LEAD are "no more than four paragraphs"; there is no minimum length. The fact that references were deleted from the lead is simply a statement of fact; if you mean this as a criticism please point out what specific references you feel are necessary. The current lead seems to meet WP:LEAD criteria much better than the previous version: Sanger's undergraduate degree, for example, is not notable enough to be worth mentioning in the lead. Rvcx (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead was substantially shortened and does not summarize the article. The education bit is important to mention in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In order to reach WP:GA status the lead was expanded but this controversial edit drastically shortened the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead should stand alone as a summary of the article. This includes the Early life and education section, the Nupedia and Wikipedia section, and the Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

This controversial change drastically shortenend the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the lead was shortened is not in itself a violation of any of the guidelines for leads. It might be useful, however, to discuss any topics which should appear in the lead but do not. Sanger's PhD (which is mentioned in the lead) seems notable enough for inclusion because it establishes Sanger's background in academia; his undergraduate degree or his musings as a child just don't seem important enough for the summary. Padding out a lead with irrelevant facts to meet a word count makes the article worse, not better. Rvcx (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article and be able to stand alone. This change is clearly a lead violation. For example, when the Nupedia and Wikipedia section is not summarized in the lead it is a direct violation of WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The current summary in the lead is that Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia. His role at Nupedia is only really notable because it led to the creation of Wikipedia. The article body describes the details, but I don't see any particular aspect that needs particular attention in the summary. Rvcx (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a reflection of the body of the article. Readers should be able to read a summary of the article in the lead. This is standard practice on Wikipedia. The Nupedia and Wikipedia section, among other sections, should be summarized in the lead. This edit violated Wikipedia's WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Organization

The structure of the article is very poor. For example, a criticism section in a BLP is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns upon "criticism and controversy" sections which localize all the negative commentary on the article's subject in one place. This article does 'not' contain such a section. The "criticism of Wikipedia" section does not provide criticism of Larry Sanger. It describes the criticism Sanger has leveled against Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In 2007 Sanger examined the possibilities for education online. He explained, "Imagine that education were not delivered but organized and managed in a way that were fully digitized, decentralized, self-directed, asynchronous, and at-a-distance." He further stated, "There would be no bureaucracy to enforce anything beyond some very basic rules, and decision-making would be placed almost entirely in the hands of teachers and students."

Text about education online was incorrectly moved to a Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In a biographical article, an "Education and Early Life" section addresses the education and early life of the subject. The paragraph you quote is not about Larry Sanger's formal education; it concerns his research on the topic of education. Rvcx (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Your point is moot becuase I do not add it to the education section. I added it to another section. Information about research on education does not belong in a Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out, the information about research of education was inappropriately moved to a Citizendium section. At this point, it was in the After Wikipedia section. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained before, information on education does not belong in the Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Information about education was added to the "Citizendium" section again in a revert. I can't think of a reason to include information on education in an unrelated section. QuackGuru (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder of Wikipedia is unsourced

Co-founder in the lead should be referenced. Wikipedia seeks WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that the co-founder issue has been pretty well established both in sourced references and previous discussion here. I personally don't have an issue with how it's worded - the fact is that Sanger was very involved in the early development of Wikipedia, how it's worded isn't a big deal to me personally. However, I think that most editors and source would indicate the "co-founder" point to be the preferred text. — Ched (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way - the "Consensus not truth" thing is a total fabrication, you should be fully aware of WP:V and the fact that a statement like that is pure and simple pseudo-journalism. Yes, I'm aware of your recent redirect, and I would hope that you would not support a statement like "consensus not truth" due to the fact that it's a pure fabrication, and complete nonsense (see WP:SYN. — Ched (talk) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC) — Ched (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus and not truuh is sourced and there is consensus to include it.

According to Wikipedia policy the text (co-founder) should be referenced. I don't see a reason to delete sources that reference "co-founder" in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK - I agree. co-founder should be there - and references are always a plus. — Ched (talk) 09:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. References are a plus for the lead. See WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

QuackGuru, your edits would be more helpful if you actually added the references you found appropriate instead of just tagging statements as unverified. There are copious references for everything in the lead in the rest of the article. Rvcx (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I did add references to the lead but you reverted the references from the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Failed verification again and WP:LEAD violation

This edit added ref citations but still failed verification. QuackGuru (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that Sanger is a prominent Wikipedia critic in the lead is a WP:LEAD violation. It is not a summary of the article to claim this. Further, after reviewing the references I could not find any reference stating Sanger is a prominent Wikipedia critic. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding these complaints. There is a whole section in the article describing Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia. This is summarized in the lead, which states that Sanger is a critic of Wikipedia. The lead goes on with a bit more detail, pointing out one of his main criticisms. Whether or not Sanger's status as a critic is original research has been put up for review at WP:ORN. Rvcx (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I also find your phrasing a bit offensive and dishonest. "Failed verification again" is not an honest way to phrase "my opinion is that this is still not verifiable". Please try to clarify the difference between your opinion and fact. Rvcx (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has not been able to provide WP:V to establish Sanger as a prominent Wikipedia critic. A criticism section in a BLP is very inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we edit according verifiability and not truth (personal opinion). There are articles written by Sanger. Sanger does not call himself a Wikipedia critic. The sources presented do not say Sanger is a Wikipedia critic. I have asked for verification. Please provide verification and a reason why it should be in the lead. Please explain which journalist is calling Sanger a Wikipedia critic or it failed verification. See WP:Consensus, not truth.

This edit failed verification. Sanger does not call himself a Wikipedia critic. This was the first failure of verification.

This edit was the second time at failing verification. Sanger does not say he is a Wikipedia critic and none of the journalists claim Sanger is a Wikipedia critic. QuackGuru (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I raised the issue at WP:ORN. There is consensus that Sanger's role as a "prominent critic of Wikipedia" is easily verifiable using the sources provided. You are aware of that, as you have participated in the discussion as the lone dissent. Rvcx (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You should be aware that the sources provided in the article do not verify that Sanger is a critic of Wikipedia. The sources added to the lead were different than the source provided by an observer at the noticeboard. Further, the lead should summarize the article. Currently the lead does not do that. The lead says Sanger is a critic of Wikipedia but the body of the article makes no mention of this. The reference in the lead should point directly to the body of the article to restate the similar point. Meaning, the body and the lead go to together. Adding the wrong references to the lead that not summarize the body is poor writing. This edit failed verification. Sanger does not call himself a critic. This edit was the second time at failing verification. The reader must be able to click on a reference to verify the text. Sending a reader on a wild goose chase makes it difficult for the reader, especially when better sources are available. It would be better to use one source and the text should explain something to the reader such as in 2002 Sanger began to be critical of Wikipedia when he departed from Wikipedia. Currently the reader does not understand the poor writing. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

These comments frequently sound more like complaints than constructive suggestions for improvement. As was pointed out on WP:ORN, if someone writes criticism and calls it criticism, then that person is a critic. Even if the word "critic" is never used it is valid to describe such a person as a critic. Every other editor who has looked at this statement has felt that it was completely obvious from the sources provided. I think just one source is sufficient for the statement, but QuackGuru felt this was not sufficient so I added a half dozen others. If QuackGuru demands a source that includes the word "critic" then there are plenty available, and I suggest he proposes his favorite among the many "better sources available".

Similarly, I have trouble understanding how "Sanger is a prominent critic of Wikipedia..." fails to summarize the section of the Larry Sanger article called "Criticism of Wikipedia". A critic of something is someone who expresses criticism of that thing. I fail to appreciate whatever semantic distinction QuackGuru is attempting to highlight. The reader can verify that Sanger is a critic of Wikipedia by following the references to Sanger's criticisms, and to news articles which cite Sanger for his criticism.

The typical reader should have no trouble whatsoever understanding that Sanger is a critic of Wikipedia. Perhaps QuackGuru meant that QuackGuru does not understand what he considers to be poor writing. If so, I suggest he use that (more correct) phrasing in future. Rvcx (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we seek WP:V. Better sources are available. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead was drastically shortened again. This was a violation of WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This version was the last good version with an appropriate summary of the body of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to compy with LEAD policy among other policies. QuackGuru (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This change has drastically shortened the lead and has deleted many references. The edit suffers from many problems including disorganization of different sections of the article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two main problems with the lead. It has been shortened and references have been removed from the lead. The lead was fully referenced and the controversial changes removed references that verified the text in the lead. Now there are too many references to one sentence in the lead which makes it difficult for the reader to verify the text. Adding five references at the end of one sentence in the lead seems counter-productive. I think the verified sentences should be restored which properly sumarized the body of the article. The shortened lead is clearly a violation of WP:LEAD. QuackGuru (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The version that properly summarized the body of the article can be viewed here. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

After Wikipedia

The Larry Sanger#After Wikipedia section has been shortened without a good explanation in a revert. The previous version was better. QuackGuru (talk) 07:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP. The article should be properly structured. QuackGuru (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The "After Wikipedia" section has been drastically shortened again. A lot of information was removed in a revert. I thinks it should be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand how does it improve the article to drastically shorten the "After Wikipedia" section. QuackGuru (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This change drastically shortened the "After Wikipedia" section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Image size

The image size has continued to change.[15][16] Both sizes are way too big. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I restored the image to a normal size. QuackGuru (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I made this change to remove unnecessary wording. QuackGuru (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Article degradation

this edit degrades the quality of the article. I am compelled to escalate this issue and request advise from other editors. — Ched (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I explained the improvements and it is a plus to include references in the lead. QuackGuru (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

this is a hack job, and an attempt to disgrace Wikipedia. I find it totally unacceptable, and I have every intension of finding a NPOV solution. I'll inform you of the AN or AN/I board I post to. — Ched (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This version of the article is very well written. I am sorry but as an outsider I don't see any "hack job" or "an attempt to disgrace Wikipedia" as stated above. I'm sorry but this is closing in on WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Please comment on the article and not the editor. I think the article reads well and is sourced with WP:RS. I just read this talk page and I am sorry but I don't understand what the problem is. I will try to watch this and give an outsiders opinion on things. I don't know too much about Larry Sanger other than what I have read in the article in the past, and now, and of course conversations about him around the project. I'm sory but I don't understand your comments nor your complaint of a WP:NPOV problem. Will you explain the problem with the article and please no complaints or talk about an editor, just what you see as a problem within the article? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I had reverted the offending edit. Which version of the article were you addressing, Crohnie? Rvcx (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was commenting on the comments made about hack job and an attempt to disgrace Wikipedia which read to me like a comment about the editor not the article. Sorry for the confusion. I answered more in full below to explain myself hopefully a little clearer. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my comment came across as a reference to the editor - it was meant to address the article version here. Specifically, the section regarding Wikipedia v Citizendium. The section was as follows:

Citizendium v. Wikipedia

Using Sanger's experience from other encyclopedias, Citizendium represents an effort to establish a scholarly and credible online encyclopedia. In an interview with CNET News in 2007 Sanger explained the reasons for starting a Wikipedia alternative:

"I think we absolutely need another wiki--first of all, simply because Wikipedia lacks credibility, unfortunately. It's a good starting place, as people say--on some subjects anyway--but it isn't really what we want out of a reliable reference resource. And frankly, I don't think that the Wikipedia community is prepared to make the changes that I think need to be made in order to transform Wikipedia into something that's really reliable."

While Citizendium is wiki-based, several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia:

• Prospective contributors are required to apply for membership under their real names. Wikipedia consists largely of anonymous editing.
• Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work. Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth.
• Citizendium has a very low tolerance for vandals, trolls, or disruption. Wikipedia has been prone to disruption and sometimes misinformation.

(end paste) That section as written is very POV. The section is presented as fact, when in reality it is a collection of perceptions from OP-ED editors and in reality not WP:NPOV. To be quite specific, the item I regard as the most inflammatory is "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth." I have found no evidence that Sanger ever said this, and in fact the actual policy WP:V does not say this. Great pains were taken to incorporate the individual statements into paragraph form per MOS. The continual attempts to post this bulleted list as a factual statement are the issue that I am addressing. Again, this edit is the one which I consider to be a reduction in quality of the article. Again, I am not addressing the individual editor - but rather the edit. I mean no disrespect to anyone, only a desire to see the content delivered in a fair and NPOV manner. Thank You. — Ched (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly from my earlier readings, other editors have reverted to the version that you keep changing. Also I don't see any problem with it being POV myself. It is well referenced and balanced to me. As for the lead, the lead is supposed to stand on it's own and tell the story of the article. What you have cut down to doesn't tell the article in it. And I am curious as to why you would remove the references about co-founder and put a on it. I have the two articles side by side on my browser to be able to compare the two different versions and I find the one you are reverting to be better. It is fully referenced, the lead tells what the article is about with references and it overall just reads better.

The comment "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth." doesn't read to me to say the Sanger said this. I found this comment in the references provide, [17] this one states, in the partial quote, this "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus". So again, I see no problem since it is supported with an WP:RS I'm sorry but I still think that this version is the best. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm jumping in as I got here from the reliable sources noticeboard. Why in a GA are these points bulleted? That is not GA form. The points should be in a paragraph. It needs to be stated who says Citizendium has low tolerance for vandals and trolls (is it policy? is it a 3rd party observation? whose? surely we would not say an individual editor's opinion on his Wikipedia experience is the same experience all editors have, so even that is a poor basis for a sweeping generalization), and who thinks consensus is more important that truth? Per Wikipedia's own policy, verifiability is the object, not truth. Is the section stating that Citizendium is invulnerable to disruption, as opposed to Wikipedia? Surely that cannot be true. Even the Super Bowl broadcast sent out some pornography in Arizona. No organization is safe from disruption, tampering, or incompetence. Instead of removing and replacing this section, someone should rewrite it. Back up, read reliable sources on Wikipedia, and write a paragraph with these points as if the audience had never heard of either organization. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been rewritten in paragraph form; QuackGuru has repeatedly attempted to revert the rewrite. Rvcx (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so? Accurate writing is not the objective for this article? Or QuackGuru is proving a point about loud voices and consensus? As long as one person continues to revert information the article is in limbo? I haven't checked the edit warring noticeboard. Is it time to bring this issue there, or has that already been done? --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through RfC, 3O, and WQA; I'm afraid I don't have much experience with such entrenched disagreements on Wikipedia. I frequently feel like I'm not successfully communicating with QuackGuru (he keeps repeating exactly the same points and reverting to exactly the same text with exactly the same problems); I thought an "official" consensus on at least a couple of these points might help change his mind so that we can gain consensus here. Rvcx (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two problems. The first, that this section is poorly written, and the second that (if what you're saying is accurate, and I have not checked the article history to verify it) a single editor is hampering the improvement of writing by blanket revisions. But I don't understand your last point: you need consensus to gain consensus? No one owns any article on Wikipedia. So editors who spend time on this article need to decide if they should approach WP:3RR, or try one more time to improve the writing of this section. Or some similar order of activities.

Let me expand on why this is poorly written. Simplicity is not necessarily the ideal. It appears, by placing two sentences back to back at a bullet, that the two sentences accurately and appropriately contrast each other.

1. Prospective contributors are required to apply for membership under their real names. Wikipedia consists largely of anonymous editing.
2. Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work. Wikiipedia seeks consensus and not truth.
3. Citizendium has a very low tolerance for vandals, trolls, or disruption. Wikipedia has been prone to disruption and sometimes misinformation

What if I wrote with citations the following bullet point:

• San Francisco has a system in place to assist its citizens during a major disaster. Ninety percent of the population of New Orleans had to evacuate in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina.

First, these two simple sentences do not appropriately compare the problems of what happened in New Orleans. Neither do they address the issues both sentences are addressing. IN:

1. Prospective contributors are required to apply for membership under their real names. Wikipedia consists largely of anonymous editing. There are so many issues with this, that I'm not sure where to begin. Wasn't Wikipedia started with the intention that all editing would be anonymous? Who says the majority or "largely" is accurate? According to whom? It is my experience that the bulk of material on Wikipedia is provided by a handful of extraordinarily dedicated amateur writers, many of whom participate in the FA process. How accurate or reliable is this person stating the "largely" anonymous editing is taking place? What is their experience on both sites?

The second and third bullet points are just badly written. Why is "approved" in quotations? Did someone say that? If so, it should say in the sentence who said it. Is that the equivalent to air quotes? If so, it should be removed. Do these two sentences back to back imply there is no role for experts on Wikipedia? Shall we block Awadewit (talk · contribs) and GrahamColm (talk · contribs) right now to prove that point? Has Citizendium never been assailed by influence, poor writing, an editor trying to prove a point, or just someone having a bad day and being bitchy? Citizendium, by the way, has tolerance for nothing. Its members do or do not. And proof of that statement should be clear, as in "According to Source A..." or "According to Citizendium policy". Apples should be compared to apples, not apple tarts to lemon meringue pie. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir as far as I'm concerned. Do you agree that the current revision, in which the appropriate material has been rewritten into the "Criticism of Wikipedia" and "Citizendium" sections, addresses these concerns? (I think there's little doubt this article should be re-reviewed for WP:GA once the edit war has ceased; I'm shocked the prior version was ever considered WP:GA.) Rvcx (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who nominated the article to begin with, but to get consensus on the quality of article's writing, you can take it to WP:GAR. Inform the person who brought it to GA in the first place, though. I think that would be a bit dirty to nominate an article for GAR without informing the person who lent time and effort to bring it to GA in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs)

I think this version is the best version to start with. The lead accurately summarizes the article and the article well organized. If editors feel the Citizendium v. Wikipedia section is too simple it can be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 21:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is what that section should say, because this is what the source say: While Citizendium is wiki-based, several aspects set it apart from Wikipedia. Prospective contributors on Citizendium are required to sign in using their real names. In contrast, users to Wikipedia may contribute anonymously, or choose one or a series of user names that have no connection to their true names. Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to approve articles on the basis of accuracy, as opposed to the Featured Article system on Wikipedia that employs a review by editors who may have no expertise in the subject. Finally, while vandalization of articles takes up time and effort on the part of Wikipedia's editors to uncover and revert, Citizendium claims never to have experienced—and has absolutely no tolerance for—vandalism. --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That reads a lot better than the current version. I'm curious how you think the references should work---the current paragraph that this would presumably replace cites no less than 12 sources, and I'm skeptical that other editors would be willing to live with just one reference (or a string of references) for the entire passage. Assuming appropriate referencing, I'd support this instead of everything from "Citizendium is wiki-based..." up to "More differences are discussed..." Rvcx (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Which reference verifies the text? "as opposed to the Featured Article system on Wikipedia that employs a review by editors who may have no expertise in the subject." QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked again at the article and though I agree the bullet points should be put in a paragraph I do have a problem with the recent edits. Rvcx, you deleted out a lot of sourced information for starters plus you seemed to have ignored what other editors have said about the section titled Citizendium v. Wikipedia . You cut the article to your preferred version, why? I think less reverting by all and talking about each section on the talk page to reach a consensus should be done. The article was at a GA status prior to all of these rewrites, this seems to to say that a complete rewrite of the article like what has happened shouldn't have been done. Moni3 didn't say delete all the information and I believe there were 4 editors plus myself who said it should be in. I am leaving now but I think the approach taken here needs to be more discussion and less reverting. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The only statement removed was "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth". Everything else was retained. No idea how the previous version managed WP:GA; it blatantly violated WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, and suffered from extremely redundancy and disorganization. Rvcx (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The only statement removed was "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth"? So where is "Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work". Please tell us. QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I had to be away for a bit in real life. Actually, perhaps that was best anyway. At this point, I'm just glad to have a few extra eyes on this. I don't believe I have anything more to add at this point, other than "thank you everyone". — Ched (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx removed a statement against consensus about consensus and not truth. I could not find this text: "Experts in their field of expertise have a role in the Citizendium community to produce "approved" work." The text is verified. See here. The word approved is in quotes because that is the way it is in the reference. The current version suffers from massive disorganization and POV. For example, information about education is in a Citizendium section. There is a Criticism section which is inappropriate in a BLP. The lead is way too short again. References have been deleted from the lead. The article had reached WP:GA but now it is a failure of WP:GA. We should start by restoring the article to the structure that got it to WP:GA status and work from there. QuackGuru (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As clearly stated when the edit was made, this sentence was removed because I couldn't find a source for the statement about Citizendium, and without that the statement about Wikipedia is undoubtedly irrelevant. If you think particular passages are POV then please identify then and explain why they are POV. The paragraph about Sanger's work on education was moved from a section where it was entirely inappropriate; perhaps it needs its own section, or it should be deleted entirely. As has been pointed out, there is nothing inappropriate about a section concerning Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia. If you think information is missing from the lead then please say what is missing. Your concerns about references in the lead have been addressed. As other editors have pointed out, the prior version of the article suffered from problems, some of which have been fixed. I will consider any further attempts to revert to your favorite revision willful vandalism. Rvcx (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Larry Sanger#NPOV improvements. Several problems have been identified including removing sourced text against consensus. See WP:Consensus, not truth. QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a redirect to WP:V you created ironically without a consensus. WP:V does not even make that claim. How it this relevant. --76.71.208.90 (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant because consensus is part of the Wikipedia process. This is common knowledge. QuackGuru (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

American philosopher

This change added American to the lead but it read "American co-founder". I think it reads better to state "American philosopher". QuackGuru (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "American co-founder" sounds weird, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate to call Sanger a philosopher; he's not really notable for his philosophical work, and it's not what he does for a living. Is there a standard Wikipedia policy on this? Does simply holding a PhD in a field automatically make someone a practitioner of the field? (Let's hope this doesn't turn into another Joe the Plumber issue.) Rvcx (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The lead should summarize the article. Drastically shortening the lead is a violation of WP:LEAD. The lead should be able to stand alone. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Article scope

There have been a number of attempts to add a general "Wikipedia is like this, but Citizendium is like that" discussion to this article, and such material has been quite contentious. In addition, many of the attempted rewrites have been a bit lax in interpretation of sources; In particular, it's much harder to verify statements of fact about the projects (or blanket summaries of how the projects are perceived) than it is to verify individual opinions of the projects (which are not presented as fact). I'd also point out that this page doesn't seem to watched by a great many Wikipedia and Citizendium experts; the "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" statement, for example, lasted a very long time here despite being unequivocally wrong (no sources in support, plenty of sources in opposition, and common knowledge among wikipedians). There are entries on Wikipedia, Citizendium, and criticism of Wikipedia which are relatively well-maintained, however, and it seems silly to attempt to recreate or duplicate that content here.

I think it makes sense to restrict this article to topics directly related to Larry Sanger, namely his motivations, actions, and opinions. The fact that Sanger is critical of Wikipedia is NPOV; bolstering his arguments with material gathered from elsewhere violates WP:NPOV. Obviously, links to articles related to Sanger's opinions are entirely appropriate. Rvcx (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The text was restored by SDJ.

The text was restored by Jennavecia.

The text was restored by SqueakBox.

The text was restored by QuackGuru.

There is consensus to keep the relevant text in the article. The sourced text is relevant. Most editors want to include the text.

On Wikipedia, we write text according to reliable references presented. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See WP:V.

Kamm, Oliver (August 16, 2007). "Wisdom? More like dumbness of the crowds". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-07. Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices. Here is the exact text from the source. The text in the article accurately reflects the source presented.

There is clear consensus to include the text.[18][19][20][21] So I included it along with other improvements such as expanding the lead and properly structuring of the article. Many more changes were made to the article without explanation. Links to articles that are directly related to Sanger are appropriate. Please see Talk:Larry Sanger#NPOV improvements. QuackGuru (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be really useful if we could actually engage in a discussion to reach a real consensus instead of cutting and pasting the same comments to different places on the page. The issue I raise is not specific to any one bit of text, however the passage I quote is a great example of contentious phrasing: several editors want the text and several do not. Rvcx (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I provided evidence there is consensus to keep it in the article. There has been a long standing consensus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agreed with the version the others did that QuackGuru is talking about here, which to my count is 5 editors to (2?). If my count is correct that is a consensus. Obviously with all the new discussion going on I am going to have to reread what is going on now. If there are any specific items I need to look at I would appreciate some difs to help me along so I can address this issue fairly and maybe help. I am busy in RL so please be patient. I will though try to get to read everything asap. Thanks, remember keep cool though, there is no deadline. ;) --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're either counting differently or counting different things. The phrase "consensus and not truth" has been explicitly refuted (each time with lengthy explanations as to why) by at least five different editors: myself, 91.148.159.4 (talk) [22], لennavecia [23], Ched (talk) [24], and Moni3 (talk) [25]. There were, however, two drive-by edits [26][27] which restored the text. Given this disagreement and the lack of productive discussion on the talk page, I raised the issue at WP:RSN, and the sentence found no support there either. It seems clear that there is no consensus in favor of this text, and quite a number of editors who feel strongly that the phrase "Wikipedia seeks consensus and not truth" is simply not true. Catchy, perhaps, but false. Rvcx (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Moni3 suggested a compromise to use the word "preceived"[28], Jennavecia reverted the edit by Rvcx, SDJ restored it, SqueakBox restored it, Professor marginalia restored it, QuackGuru disagrees with Rvcx, and Crohnie agrees it should be restored. There is consensus to mention Wikipedia works by consensus. The text is referenced in accordance with WP:V. QuackGuru (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Jennavecia: "Do not again remove the section without gaining consensus on the talk page. It is sourced and relevant. Also, your reason for removal was inaccurate. Not only is he mentioned in the section, he's quoted in it."[29] I concur. It is sourced and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanger as a "prominent critic"

Given that Sanger has been cited many times by the media as a critic of Wikipedia, and that he actually makes an effort to publicize his criticism, it seems that he qualifies as prominent. This was mentioned on the discussion at [30]; it's not original research. Rvcx (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources cited mention anything about "prominent critic". And if a source did cite that we still need to adhere to writing text in a neutral way. See WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It's been explained pretty clearly on WP:ORN that you don't need a source with the same exact words. Sanger is often cited by the media for his criticism of Wikipedia (it's tough to find an article which cites another critic but not him), thus he is a prominent critic of Wikipedia. I think the WP:ORN interpretation of policy is both clear and correct. Rvcx (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just leave it out, its really weaselly and to say tough to find an article which cites another critic but not him is beyond silly. Please stop. --Tom 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to listen to reasons for leaving it out, but I don't understand what is meant by "weaselly". Again, the fact that Sanger is a prominent critic is both obvious and verifiable, and this exact text has been vetted on WP:ORN. I feel I've bent over backwards to see the other side and really don't understand. Do you think that prominent pushes a POV which undermines Sanger, or do you think the text overstates his importance? Again, I think there's a substantial difference between someone who happens to be critical of something (as, for example, Steve Jobs is critical of George W. Bush) and someone who is notable specifically for their criticism. I'd even venture to say that Sanger is the most prominent critic of Wikipedia (even if he's nothing like the most rabid). Rvcx (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx, we don't need a source? But I think we do. Please provide verification and adhere to Wikipedia's WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. Rvcx, you keep pointing to the ORN discussion which started about labeling Sanger a "critic" which seemed ok to me. There was a "little" discussion about using the describer "prominent" but far from any real consensus. Again, your claim the fact that Sanger is a prominent critic is both obvious and verifiable is your POV which you are entitled too, but it doesn't make it the final word. Many many many many folks and experts are critical of WP, I don't even have to go to the article that covers criticism of this project to know that. What raises Sanger to the level of "prominent" is a POV and unneeded in the LEAD imho. If you want to go into great detail further into the article fine, but what is the point here and how does this improve the article? All of this is aside from what Quack is asking/looking for. Anyways, --Tom 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC) ps, sorry I didn't really answer your question, it would be more but not totally that text overstates his importance imho. I would say that Wikipedia has received criticism from far more notable persons than Sanger. Anyways, --Tom 22:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Is your view that there is no circumstance under which anyone can be called "prominent"? I completely agree that there are lots of Wikipedia critics, and many of those who criticize Wikipedia are more prominent than Sanger, however I can't think of any more prominent specifically for their criticism of Wikipedia. The fact that Sanger is among the most cited (if not the most cited) is easily verifiable. Again, I think it does add something to the lead. Consider this scenario: Sanger leaves Wikipedia to do something completely unrelated, and he happens to mention in passing on several occasions some criticism of Wikipedia. Then he's a critic, and this is quite interesting coming from a co-founder, so we might put it in the lead. But the real situation is quite different: not only does he have criticism of Wikipedia, but he publicly pushes this criticism, and the media frequently goes to him for quotes about Wikipedia's shortcomings. In fact, he may be as notable for his criticism as he is for Citizendium (although the two are clearly linked---he uses the visibility he gets from his criticism to get publicity for Citizendium). This distinction really does seem worth highlighting in the lead. I admit it's not a huge issue, but I'm still not understanding the argument that he's not a prominent critic. Would a different word be more appropriate? A "well-known" or "oft-cited" critic or something? (Neither of those sounds as good to my ear.) Rvcx (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Aha! How about "outspoken critic", which is the exact text from the first reference given, which describes Sanger as "one of its most outspoken critics today". Hard to call that a pro-Sanger bias..."outspoken" is as often a euphemism for "crank" as it is for "important". Rvcx (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we still must adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It should be written neutral in tone. It is not neutral to add the weasel wording "prominent". QuackGuru (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx, I think your response is getting at what I am after. "prominent" can mean different things to different people so yes, I would try for different wording that is accurate, sourceable, and conveys what Sanger is noted for ect., ie maybe "ofter cited" or maybe "outspoken critic" ect. The best thing would be to get other opinions and a "compromise" that we can all live with. Easy to do? Doubtful, but lets try. I still would not like prominent as already outlined. Anyways, lets keep the suggestions coming and what do OTHERS think :) Cheers! Tom 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very clear the word prominent or similar word is weasel wording and inappropriate. I consider it a BLP violation. QuackGuru (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is a commonly cited critic of Wikipedia. — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC) or - Larry Sanger is commonly cited by the media, as a critic of Wikipedia — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanger is not commonly cited by the media, as a critic of Wikipedia. Let's be WP:Honest about this. The media mentions Sanger numerous times but it is uncommon to claim that Sanger is a critic. It is a minority position to claim Sanger is a critic. The claim made that Sanger is commonly cited in the media as a critic of Wikipedia is unfounded. QuackGuru (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Support for QG's version

QG has asked me to look at this article and I have. I believe his version to be substantially better than the version that is supported by Ched Davis and Rvcx. I also think that the way that WP:CON and WP:VANDAL have been invoked as bludgeons is inappropriate. Please discuss content matters rather than continuing in this regard.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with QG's version. SA also has a point here. Let the version QG has put in and then discuss what is not liked here so it can be discussed. I will try to keep up with conversations here to give my opinions on things. RL has me busy though but I will do my best to help. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born July 16, 1968[1]) is an American philosopher, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the creator of the encyclopedia Citizendium.[2][3][4]

The first sentence as "the" repeated twice at the end of the sentence. This is a grammar issue. I think the additional "the" should be removed.

I would change it to:

Lawrence Mark "Larry" Sanger (born July 16, 1968[1]) is an American philosopher, co-founder of Wikipedia, and the creator of encyclopedia Citizendium.[2][3][4]

The additional "the" is unnecessary. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to remove the extra "the". QuackGuru (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Original comment restored

On a side note, I restored Sanger's original comment.[31][32] QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre claim

The claim needed tweaking to be more accurate. QuackGuru (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to fix the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Archives of Talk

I'd like to see these talk threads stick around a little longer than 24 hours please. — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to note, that I appreciate the work you've put in lately QuackGuru. Article looks good. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog entry

These edits added a blog site to the article. I think the blog does not meet WP:RS when we have plenty of more reliable sources available to verify the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. We don't need another source there, much less a blog. لennavecia 14:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the source presented

Resolved

McCarthy, Caroline (January 23, 2007). "Citizendium: Wikipedia co-founder Sanger's Wikipedia rival". CNET News. Retrieved 2009-04-13. There will also be "gentle expert oversight" to provide some guidance, and presumably to prevent future wiki-vandalism in the manner of Stephen Colbert. I added the exact text from the source to make it more clear. I restored the text that accurately reflected the source presented. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The text as it is written now (with the relevant statement in quotations) is fine with me. I took umbrage with the original wording because it was not in quotes, not exactly as worded in the article and constituted a euphamism. Either quote it directly and mark it as such, or write what it actually is. We can't have both. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie-dokie! QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder of Nupedia

Jimmy Wales, co-founder of both Nupedia and the Wikipedia project, credits "The Cathedral and the Bazaar," Eric Raymond's online essay on the merits of decentralized software design, for prompting the experiment.[33] Who are the other founders of Nupedia? Tim Shell is one of the founding partners[34]. Jimmy Wales identified himself in August 2002 as "co-founder" of Nupedia.[35] In 1996, Wales and two partners founded a Web directory called Bomis.[36] Also, to the best of my knowledge, the "thousands of his own dollars" invested in these projects were, if I am not very mistaken, the dollars of Bomis.com, which is jointly owned by three partners, Jimmy, Tim Shell, and Michael Davis. (The money for Wikipedia now comes from donations.)[37] QuackGuru (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder discussion rumbles on

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describinbg Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 07:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases," - there's even a message from him for that, from January 2002 - "But yes, since I'm paying for it to be sent out, I'll have to approve the final version. :-)" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole article is starting to take on a pro-Sangler/anti-Wales POV slant again. I'm not going to nit-pick the whole founder/co-founder thing, because frankly, it's been done to death. To suggest that Sangler built wikipedia by himself, and that Wales was only a "minor" role in it's development is simply naive. You can quote and cite all the op-ed articles you want, but the bottom line is that they both fulfilled their rolls in the development of Wikipedia. There's been a lot of good work done here on this article, and I applaud that. I don't want my post to come across as critical of all the hard research and work done here, but it can be improved upon. Suggestions to follow. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Refs

OK, I know that due to the controversial nature of much of the article, we need to have plenty of references. It may be getting to the point where it's a little over-done though. When the cites start to detract from the readability of the article, it might be time to work out a few of the in-line cites. Example: (In the "Origins of Wikipedia" section)

• In response to Wales' view, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of links which seemingly confirms his co-founder honorary appellation,[14][46] including referencing earlier versions of Wikipedia pages,[47][48][49][50] citing press releases from Wikipedia in the years of 2002 - 2004,[51][52][53] and asserting that early media coverage stories[54][55][56] described Wales and Sanger as the co-founders.[14][46]

14 cites for one run-on sentence is a bit much don't you think?

Also, if we can massage the lead a bit so that we don't have a cite for every choppy sentence, the whole thing could flow much better. If we can get a thought worked out in continuous form that we only need put a couple cites per paragraph, the article will come together much better in the end. Just a thought, gleen from it what you will. ;) — Ched :  ?  06:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I split up the long run on sentence and made modifications to the references. Every sentence in the WP:LEAD needs to be supported by inline citations per WP:LEADCITE. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

good work. Would there be any way to arrange some of the lead so that 1 or 2 refs could cover a couple sentences in a row? — Ched :  ?  19:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Per LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality.

The lead needs to be well supported by references for each specific sentence for this biography. QuackGuru (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I don't know how to explain it any better at the moment, but I'll think about how to explain what I mean to you in a little more detail, then try to give you some examples. I also noticed that you've been moving the article more towards a NPOV view. Good work on that as well. ;) Cheers — Ched :  ?  19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even with references in the lead it was previously challenged. Without references it could be deleted and it is necessary for the reader to be able to click on each specific citation. Every sentence needs to be referenced. QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

While I hear what you're saying,Ched, I think the current article level of erring on the side of more rather than less referencing is regrettably necessary. In an ideal world, things would be different. But given the realities of the situation, this is a case of better safe (an abundance of cites) than sorry (edit-war). For example, see just today "Wikipedia boss challenged over claims made in Hot Press": "Sanger is frustrated by what he describes as Wales' attempts to write him out of history, saying: "From 2001 through early 2004 or so, when the media wanted to do a story about Wikipedia, we were both interviewed. Then, sometime in 2004, Jimmy started quite simply leaving me out of the history of Wikipedia. From mid-2004, he had started referring to himself as -the (singular) founder' of Wikipedia. Then in about 2005, he began actually denying that I was co-founder." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I was going to point out a few suggestions, but so long as everyone here is happy, then I won't try to wikilawyer and start a "But it says ABC in XYZ", or upset the applecart in any way. I'm not here to nit-pick, and I'm certainly not going to edit-war with anyone over any page. Just a thought to keep in mind however, the lead doesn't "have" to necessarily be filled with contentious statements. The one example that would come to mind would be the FA Barack Obama. I would venture to say that he is every bit as controversial as Larry, but they've managed to keep a good flow in the lead. As far as the content itself, well, that really wasn't what I was addressing. In fact, I even mentioned to Larry on his Citizendium talk page that he could post his "Open Letter" on his user page with likely little objection. I didn't really follow up with him on whether or not he did apply the GFDL to it, but I trust his judgment over mine on that one anyway. Personally I don't have a problem with either Larry or Jimbo, and I respect both equally, but I'm drifting away from the proper topic; which is the quality of this particular BLP article. I'll leave you folks to your editing then, and wish you the best of luck. Cheers. ;) — Ched :  ?  00:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You can e-mail me if you still have any specific concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the story where supposedly Babe Ruth was asked why he merited a salary higher than the President, and replied "I had a better year than he did." Something like that seems at work here, though I can't quite find the right words for a comparable reply. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Website link style

http://larrysanger.org/

http://larrysanger.org/

There are two different styles for the website link in the infobox. QuackGuru (talk) 03:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I made this change to simplify the link without the added comments. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose per this discussion about link types. -- IRP ☎ 13:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit keeps the external link appearing as an external link. I'm not sure what is specifically opposed. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I was opposing wrapping the link in <span class="plainlinks"></span>. That text that you removed was just hidden text that appears only in the edit screen, not when viewing the article. The text was letting users know not to make the external link look like an internal link. -- IRP ☎ 03:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The hidden text was unnecessary IMHO. The link is now an external link. QuackGuru (talk) 03:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref changes

This edit made numerous changes to the references. Two references currently display an error as follows: no |archiveurl= specified. Some references had changes to the work and publisher. QuackGuru (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for noting the errors. I missed those. The template fields were being misused. The work field italicizes, thus should only include information that should be italicized, like magazine titles. The publisher field is for those that do not, such as websites. Archiveurl information has its own set of fields, and I just forgot to adjust the url for that. I'll fix it now. لennavecia 15:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The last two edits removed the error notice but added links that do not appear to benefit the reader.

The first link looks like it goes to an ad site. http://www.sangersreview.com/ This website is no longer associated with Sanger.

The second link is a dead link. However, there is a historical page called Wikipedia:Historical archive/Rules to consider that might work. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The way it currently is may be the best we can hope for. To keep the historical accuracy the links are linked the the original page. If it were changed to another link then it would be incorrect. I can only think of two choices that would be acceptable. We can keep it as is or remove the links. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a link to each. The original and the archive. Obviously the first link won't work right, thus the link to archive. لennavecia 14:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Both are hosted at Internet Archive. I think this should be noted in the ref under work or publisher. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the standard. And that's not what the work and publisher fields are for. لennavecia 22:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Where the page is linked to is not clear in the reference and there may not be a standard to clarify for references when the link is not at the original website. We may need a new standard such as |hostwebsite=Internet Archive to avoid confusion. Currently, there is no way for the reader to know who is hosting the webpage. It won't be clear unless this is explained in the reference. QuackGuru (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hammersley, Ben (January 30, 2003). "Common knowledge". The Guardian. Internet Archive. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

Reference number 53 is archived at Internet Archive. I needs to be fixed. QuackGuru (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Reference number 61 needs fixing. Larry Sanger#cite ref-Michael Singer 60-0 QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki" (Email). Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

Reference number 13 might need fixing. QuackGuru (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Sometimes Smackbot can improve the references. I would like to add a tag to this article to enable SmackBot to possibly improve the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with the references now? I just went through all of them. لennavecia 22:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a few refs that might need to be fixed. I am currently reviewing the refs right now. The archived refs are a bit confusing on how to format. QuackGuru (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Early Life and education

The early life and education section is a bit short. Maybe it could be expanded. QuackGuru (talk) 00:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a tag. This has two purposes. This will enable SmackBot and maybe we can get good ideas on expanding the early life and education section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The co-foundership of Wikipedia was not disputed until around 2005

If we take a closer look at the early history of the Wikimedia Foundation page it clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. I wonder who the IP is. Is it the other founder of Wikipedia? Hmm. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was a Bomis office IP or something like that, since it also seems to have been used by Googie Man who is (on-wiki information) "Terry Foote (Bomis employee)". Many other edits apparently match Terry Foote's interests. So there's plausible deniabily :-) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I might know who it was. Is Googie Man and the IP the same person or was it a shared IP? QuackGuru (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying it looks like an IP that was mostly used by Terry Foote/Googie Man, but occasionally Wales seemed to have used it. There's plenty of ways that could happen - a dynamic IP for Bomis, or at Foote's home and Wales visited sometimes, etc. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit suggests Wikia is directly related to the Wikimedia Foundation. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How so? I don't see that implication. Note Terry Foote is "a close friend for decades" with the other founder of Wikipedia -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

When the Wikimedia Foundation was started it was announced when Wales was a Bomis partner but mysterously it was changed to Wikia. There must be a connection between Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation. The questionable edit seems to be made by someone who has a WP:COI. Wikia is for profit but the Wikimedia Foundation is not for profit. The only reason I could think of why it was changed to Wikia was to promote Wikia. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. When the Wikimedia Foundation was started, Bomis was Wales's main business. Then he got the idea that "With Wikia, a Wikipedia founder looks to strike it rich." (they said it, not me!). That is, Wikia became his main business. This is the impetus behind rewriting the history to remove Larry Sanger's co-Founder credit. While the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia are legally separate entities, there are many informal connections, and a few formal connections too (some are mentioned in the Wikimedia Foundation's tax filings and financial reports). The use of what I call the halo effect of Wikipedia to promote Wikia is a problematic issue, and much noted in certain critiques. I would attributed that promotion as "Terry Foote, Wales' friend, installed then at the Wikimedia Foundation" rather than abstractly "The Wikimedia Foundation" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought when the Wikimedia Foundation was anounced in 2003 there was no Wikia. Later on there was a for profit Wikia. But this edit suggested Wikia was up and running in 2003 when the not for profit Wikimedia Foundation was started. But this edit suggests Wikia was part of the Wikimedia Foundation back in 2003. I thought Wikia did not start until 2004. QuackGuru (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of the history is correct. The edit is anachronistic - it mixes up time-periods. The situation is something like "It was announced by at-the-time (2003) Bomis CEO and now (2005) Wikia CEO ...". But the original text had a problem too, in that I think (not sure) Wales wasn't "former Bomis CEO" but "current Bomis CEO" in 2003. So while it was indeed a bit promotional of Wikia, I can see how it happened, in a sort of good-faith but definitely WP:COI way. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Citizen Sanger" - Larry Sanger interview in _Hot Press_

This may be a good source of material for Sanger's statements (paywall'ed, unfortunately). I'll simply quote the summary. "Citizen Sanger" "In an exclusive interview, LARRY SANGER - widely credited as co-founder of Wikipedia - takes issue with a number of comments made by ex-colleague Jimmy Wales in Hot Press recently, and explains why his new online encyclopedia, Citizendium, will eventually conquer cyberspace." -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unable to read the article. If anyone has a copy send it my way via e-mail. QuackGuru (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I saw at one time that it was better to avoid using pay/membership sites as a source. Not sure which policy or guideline, or perhaps even an essay that stated that, but if I run across it again, I'll be glad to post the link. — Ched :  ?  19:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, there's no policy or guideline that prohibits or discourages the use of pay sites. Generally, if the same information can be pulled from a freely available sources, that is obviously preferable. However, if information is relevant to the topic, offering new information, the fact that it requires a fee or membership should not prevent it from being used. Although it should be noted in the reference that it does require a fee or membership, whatever the case may be, typically following the title/url in parentheses. لennavecia 19:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I think the item I was remembering was WP:ELNO which doesn't directly relate. I'd think that before long the article may be reprinted somewhere that would be accessible to all anyway; but, that "exclusive" part may prevent that. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cofoundership

FWIW, the page with revision 1 in Wikipedia happens to be a list of Wikipedians. In this list, there's this entry:

“ # [[Larry Sanger]], a.k.a [[LMS]], cofounder of Wikipedia and editor-in-chief of Nupedia ”

Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Semantics of 'founder' wrt Sanger

It seems to me that an entities' founder is the owner/entrepreneur, even if the creative work is shared. Eg - transitor was coined by somebody at Bell Labs. A transistor is an invention while Bell Labs is an enterprise. Who was the founder of Bell Labs? AT&T and General Electric, in 1925. Was the first president of Bell Labs its founder? Perhaps it would be more accurate to term him its "founding president"(?) ↜Just M E here , now 20:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to leave this in the record for the next time the discussion turns up: Wikipedia is a project; Bomis is a company, as is the Wikimedia Foundation. Nobody is claiming that Sanger founded either company; the claim is that he (co-)founded the project. Nobody would claim that the president of Bell Labs invented the transistor, nor would anyone claim that Shockley founded Bell Labs. Rvcx (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Co-founder discussion rumbles on

Wales did not dispute the fact that he is the co-founder when Sanger was part of the project. Wales would have had to seen the Wikipedia press releases, early versions of Wikipedia articles, and several media coverage articles, all describing Wales and Sanger as the co-founders. He never publicly objected to being called the co-founder until at least late 2004 or early 2005. For example, the WF page clearly states that Wales is the co-founder of Wikipedia. It was not disputed until an IP changed it in 2005 after Sanger left the project. The same IP made an edit to the Jimmy Wales page. Then a minute later Jimmy Wales edited the Jimmy Wales page but did not revert the change the IP made to his birthdate. Another editor reverted the change. But then Jimmy Wales reverted back to the edit made by the IP. Wales had previously used the IP. Sanger became critical of Wikipedia after he left the project. That's when Wales began to claim that he is the "sole founder" of Wikipedia. According to Jimmy Wales the owner/entrepreneur was the founder. That means according to Jimmy Wales he was not the founder because Wales had two partners who were owners/entrepreneurs. When Wales claims the owner/entrepreneur should be a founder then the other two partners are the co-founders of Wikipedia. Wales did not dispute the co-foundership of Wikipedia until Sanger left the project. What did Wales actually do at Wikipedia in the early years. He was busy with Bomis. He hired Sanger because he needed someone to run Nupedia. When Wikipedia got started, Wales (along with two other patners) mainly paid the bills while Sanger was doing a lot of the work building and promoting Wikipedia. Wales provided the "financial backing" while Sanger "led the project". Jimmy Wales had a minor role in the early development of Wikipedia in terms of building the project. Sanger named the project, thought of using wiki software, conceived of Wikipedia, was an early community leader, and established Wikipedia's most basic policies including Ignore all rules and NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

assisted with the founding sounds more neutral..even Wales' article should even say it. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, QuackGuru is correct in this. The "co-founder" has been a topic of debate over many, many, many, threads. The community has long ago agreed to "co-founder". — Ched :  ?  07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But does Jimbo agree with it?--Trulexicon (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense to either you or Jimbo - but it really doesn't matter. We operate on consensus. That's one of our basic principles. — Ched :  ?  07:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been on wikipedia for a while so I know that...but still Jimbo's a party involved in this issue, so his word carries more weight. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, actually - nope, not in this case. Jimbo doesn't really get involved in "content disputes" per se. If you feel a dispute needs to be resolved here - please see: WP:DR, perhaps a RFC could be done - but I doubt it would really resolve things in your favor. To be honest, I do agree with you, but I long ago came to the realization that the community had chosen the wording. As much as I would like to side with you on this matter, it's simply not a viable option. Sorry. — Ched :  ?  07:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I could do an RFC about this? hmm that might be a good idea...--Trulexicon (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wales' viewpoint is clear, and it contradicts all reliable sources on the topic. This article presents this contradictory viewpoint. NPOV does not mean removing a verifiable fact one person wishes weren't so; doing so is a violation of NPOV. Rvcx (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Protect

Fully protect it prevent a more protracted edit war on this article. --Trulexicon (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is already at "semi". As this is a single editor type of thing, the more common remedy would be "blocks". Please see: WP:3RR before you continue. I can appreciate your viewpoints, but we do have some established procedures here, and I'd hate to see you getting into a bad situation. Thanks — Ched :  ?  07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I know about the 3 revert rule; I'm not reverting any verison back to mine for now anyway...but I feel we should seriously consider fully protecting the article, I don't care which version just fully protect.--Trulexicon (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it, but the WP:RFPP things would indicate that it isn't warranted quite yet. You could submit the article there, but I suspect it would be declined for the moment. — Ched :  ?  07:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Minus protuding search box/add search box

The talk page may need protection. There is an alleged sockpuppet among us. QuackGuru (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not up on all the "sockpuppet" stuff, but I do think the search box is a plus. I'm going to put it back, as I think it adds to the functionality of efforts here. — Ched :  ?  03:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a search box is very helpful, more so, the more archives there are. This will search the current talk page and the archives.

QuackGuru was just posting this to harass me. I filed an incident report. QuackGuru has been blocked for a month Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#QuackGuru:_continued_harassment_and_edit_warring.2Fbaiting --stmrlbs|talk 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand - why is this a controversy? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I put in a search box. Something that shouldn't be a problem. QG reverts the searchbox (like he did here). He is reverting it for the hell of it. Then he adds in a statement implying I'm a sockpuppet. Harassment. But, he will have to get his jollies somewhere else for a month now that he's been blocked. --stmrlbs|talk 06:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What I don't get is the connection between putting in a search box and sockpuppeting. That is, generally, people use sockpuppets for controversies - i.e. why would putting in a search box relate to being a sockpuppet? And isn't a one-month block very harsh for the situation, even if there was previous interpersonal conflict? (wouldn't the WP:COOL thing to do be to just say something along the lines of "Why would anyone socketpuppet over a search box?"). I feel like I've come into the tail end of something I don't comprehend at all. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

read the incident report [38]. It might help you understand.. and that doesn't even begin to cover it. But, it was enough, I guess. --stmrlbs|talk 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There have been interpersonal conflicts, to such a degree that QuackGuru and User:Levine2112 have received topic bans for six months, and yet QG just has to keep harassing Stmrlbs by following her around and undoing her edits. That's so wrong. Stmrlbs has suffered enough under suspicions of socking and/or meatpuppetry for Levine2112, and it needs to stop. Her only fault has been in getting too close to Levine2112, who is a lightning rod for controversy. I have apologized privately to her for my part in it and I hope that QG will finally leave her alone. This is simple hounding and harassment of Stmrlbs, who has been cleared of any sockpuppetry charges. What she is doing with the search function is a valuable addition, and we all should back her up in this endeavor. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My sin is agreeing with a lot of Levine2112's edits. This is an unforgiveable sin to many other editors who - let me see if anyone can guess - don't agree with Levine2112's edits. I walk on the dark side. I am a wild child. What can I say? I won't deny it any longer. --stmrlbs|talk 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

And, for the record, BullRangifer was right in there with QuackGuru with the sockpuppet charges. Levine2112 was cleared of the sockpuppet charges [39] and by [40], along with me. And that's it for this historical interlude on the Larry Sanger talk page. If anyone wants to continue this riveting discussion, please feel free to post on my talk page. over and out. --stmrlbs|talk 22:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanger "becoming critical"

There are no reliable sources that Sanger "became critical" of wikipedia after leaving the project; only evidence that this is when he began airing the criticisms in public. In fact, his own story is that these criticisms were a major concern for him while he was still involved in the project. Many of the refs already used verify his regret that his efforts to enshrine a respect for expertise in WP policy; there are plenty of other sources for his efforts while with the project. But proving that his criticism pre-dated his departure is not the point—the point is that there is no source for the claim that his criticism was born after he left. Rvcx (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the personal opinion of Rvcx that does not belong in an article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "became critical" was an older version. The current version does not have that specific phrase. QuackGuru (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is how to sort this out: If you can find secondary sources that indicate that Sanger was critical of the projects while still on board, it can be sourced as such. Otherwise, the evidence that I have seen shows sanger criticising the project upon leaving it, and that is how it should be written. Remember we need secondary sources, because even Jimbo is critical of aspects of this project at times, but that doesn't mean his is critical of the whole thing. Viridae^Talk 08:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is actually a subtle issue. I believe the situation is that Sanger has certain philosophical ideas about how an encyclopedia should be administered, which conflict with Wales's more marketing-oriented ideas. The conflict has become more prominent over the years as Wales has emphasized the marketing approach in reaction to various apparent flaws, to Sanger's evident disgust. But I don't think it was a case of a sharp break in the criticism process. I acknowledge this will be difficult to fit into the various citation constraints. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a good quote describing Sanger's views in the recent article "Wikipedia Co-Founder Speaks Out Against Jimmy Wales" - "I thought that the project would never have the amount of credibility it could have if it were not somehow more open and welcoming to experts," he stated as one reason for distancing himself. "The other problem was the community had essentially been taken over by trolls to a great extent. That was a real problem, and Jimmy Wales absolutely refused to do anything about it." - Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's criticism

Summarizing Sanger as "critical of Wikipedia's accuracy" is a misrepresentation of his view. In all primary sources, Sanger focuses much more on the perception of the project as well as its editorial process than on running down the actual accuracy of the information. Focusing on this one small criticism and ignoring his main message is a blatant violation of wp:undue. Rvcx (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

From Sanger's kuroshin article: "The problem I would like to point out is not that Wikipedia is unreliable." Never once does he claim that the information in Wikipedia is inaccurate. It is the case, however, that some sloppy journalists try to oversimplify his criticisms to fit the "Wikipedia is wrong" storyline. Rvcx (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

More than one source says "accuracy". QuackGuru (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium Screen Shot

(was WP:ANI)

The edit war needs to stop. I've posted this issue at ANI. Feel free to discuss it there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points here:

• The image is currently not cleared for use in this article. There's a procedure for getting clearance (I think; not an area I've looked into much before) and it hasn't been completed.

• This picture is complete crap and of marginal relevance, anyway. An unreadable thumbnail of a screenshot of a web site doesn't illustrate anything about Larry Sanger. Sanger's article isn't a dumping ground for trivialities from the Citizendium page; if the reader is interested in a thorough treatment of that project they can click through.

Rvcx (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

All of you, stop the back and forth edits and wait for input from other editors, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There already was input from other editors at ANI. The result was keep. Rvcx is removing the image against consensus and for no logical reason. QuackGuru (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI does not address content issues. They are addressing your behavior; i.e. whether your edit-warring is grounds for a block. If you would like to comment on the two points I make here about the content dispute, then please do so. Rvcx (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI addressed the fair use of the image like this comment. No consensus has been reached to removing the image after it has been in the article for a long time. The image is cleared for use in this article. The image is useful and appropriate for the Citizendium section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't. I'd say that it also didn't establish any sort of consensus on the content dispute that you could point to in your argument here. --Onorem♠Dil 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be much easier for people to follow discussion if you'd reply instead of changing your previous comments...but that comment makes the argument for including it in the article about the website. Even if the argument was for inclusion in this article, that's no consensus for saying any result was reached. --Onorem♠Dil 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You added a FUR for this article. Whether it's a valid FUR or not is another issue. Why is the image needed here? Do other website founder articles include screenshots under fair use? From the few I've looked at, it doesn't seem common. Again, could you please respond without simply changing your previous comments? People looking to follow the conversation shouldn't have to use the history tab to do it. --Onorem♠Dil 03:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's a valid FUR or not is not another issue when no specific objection was made to the FUR, especially when the image has no market value and is clearly relevant to the Citizendium section. The image is needed because it improves the article. The image is relevant to the CZ section becuase Sanger founded CZ. It is common for BLPs to have a handful of images in the body. This page has no images in the body. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding an image for the sake of having an image is poor editing. There is absolutely no need to "illustrate" Citizendium, in fact the screenshot is nothing but a distraction from the content of the article. Any reader curious for a more detailed description of Citizendium can click through to that article; it is only appropriate to summarize the aspects of the project relevant to Larry Sanger here. A screenshot provides no further insight into Larry Sanger or his life. Rvcx (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding an image that illustrates Citizendium for a section about Citizendium is good argument to keep the image. Images are not a distraction in BLPs. Lots of BLPs have images in the body. Your argument does not make any sense. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Any fair use of the screenshot on this website is being discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010_January_2#File:Citizendium.png. I see no consensus either way so far. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So far there was never any consensus to remove the image. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So far there is no consensus to include the image. Nor have you or any other editor made any reasonable case as to why the image is necessary in an article about Larry Sanger. Rvcx (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You have never got consensus to remove the image in the first place. Your reason to delete the image in not a reason at all. QuackGuru (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, please stop changing your comments. If you have something more to say, it's more helpful to carry on with the thread below the latest comments. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jimmy Wales page has 6 images in the body while this page has zero images. This is absurd to delete a very good image from this page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason to have to include more images into this article...but if it was, lets check out other articles from popular website founders.

• David Filo and Jerry Yang (Yahoo co-founders) have one image each.
• Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google co-founders) have 2 and 3 respectively, none of the website or that are fair use.
• Pierre Omidyar (eBay) has one picture.
• 4 images total between the 3 founders of YouTube (Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, Jawed Karim)...again without an image of the website.
• Mark Zuckerberg gets two images. Dustin Moskovitz gets one. Eduardo Saverin and Chris Hughes don't have an image at all. (Facebook)
• Matt Mullenweg (WordPress) has one.
• Craig Newmark (Craigslist) has one.

None of these has an image of the website that they were responsible for creating. None of these has an image being used under fair use. The Wales article may have 6 images, but that has nothing to do with this article. Do you know of any images that don't need fair use justification that would add something to this article? --Onorem♠Dil 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages images like the Bill Gates page which has 5 images in the body. This is the best image I can find for the CZ section that does add something to this article. "Whether it's a valid FUR or not is another issue." No, it is not another issue. No specific objection was made to the FUR. The other founder has 6 images but Larry Sanger is not allowed to have one image in the body? QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

People with more free images available sometimes end up with more images in their articles. As much as you seem to want it to be, this isn't about Jimbo vs Larry. I don't think the FUR adequately explains the need for the image in this article. People don't need to see a picture of the website to understand that he founded a website. Maybe a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review would be helpful. I'd be happy to start a discussion there to get more input if that works for you. --Onorem♠Dil 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The FUR more than adequately explains the rationale for the image in this article. No specific objection to the FUR was made. QuackGuru (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree. I do not believe that it passes Criteria 8. (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.) --Onorem♠Dil 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are changing your story again. You mean you agree with me when you did not explain why the rationale was not adequate. I explained the rationale is adequate by writing a FUR but you are unable to provide an objection to the FUR for this page. That means the image is free to use on this page. The image would increase the understanding of the CZ topic when the reader will understand there is another website similar Wikipedia with a main page. QuackGuru (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a specific objection, so I gave one. I don't believe I've changed my story. I'm just able to be more specific as you continue to make changes and attempt to explain yourself. Simply writing a rationale doesn't automatically make it valid. How does the images presence significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic? How would excluding it be detrimental to that understanding? He founded a website. Why do we need a fair use image to explain that? --Onorem♠Dil 22:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Simply writing a rationale doesn't automatically make it valid." No, simply implying the rationale is not valid without a specific objection is odd. A FUR was written but no specific objection to the text of the FUR was made. I don't understand why you are asking why the fair use image explains that Sanger founded Citizendium. Some editors claim the image is not relevant to this page but when Larry Sanger founded the web site it becomes clear it is relevant. I have already explained why the image meets Criteria 8 in my previous comment. QuackGuru (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We're obviously not getting anywhere. My apologies for wasting your time. I've brought the issue up at Wikipedia:Non-free content review. --Onorem♠Dil 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You know you asking me question after question is complete nonsense. When you wrote "Whether it's a valid FUR or not is another issue." was not acceptable. You did not give any specific objection. So you really do not have an issue with the image. I have no idea what is your purpose here. I did everything you asked. I wrote a FUR and you continued to make excuses. QuackGuru (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is it nonsense? I'm trying to explain my thoughts and understand yours. I'm attempting to communicate, but now I'm just sick of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I gave specific objections from the start. Please take further discussion to the noticeboard, where so far the only input is that it "clearly fails WP:NFCC." --Onorem♠Dil 15:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You wrote "Whether it's a valid FUR or not is another issue." This is not a specific objection. Why is it nonsense? Becuase you never provided a specific objection to the FUR but you continue to assert you did. QuackGuru (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You've quoted that post multiple times now. Did you happen to read past the part you continue to quote? "Why is the image needed here?" <---There it is. That's the question asked by criteria #8. --Onorem♠Dil 21:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Why is the image needed here?" is not a specific objection to the FUR. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is. The FUR needs to address that question. It currently doesn't. You've explained why it would be nice to have a non-free image. You have not explained why a non-free image is needed. We don't add non-free images just to make an article look better, or make sure that Larry has as many pictures as Jimmy. --Onorem♠Dil 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to ask questions but have not raised a specific objection. No article on Wikipedia needs any images but it would be nice to have a screenshot from Citizendium in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair Use - It being nice doesn't qualify. It's understandable to use the image at the Citizendium article. The visual aspect of the website matters to the article about the website. It does not matter in this bio when readers can click on the link and see it there. I still haven't seen an example of where we've used fair use to justify showing a screenshot of a website for a biography. --Onorem♠Dil 07:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The images in the Wales article are unlike this one a) free b) high-quality or at least decipherable and c) there because I put them there. One of the reasons for this is that there are a huge selection of free Wales image, something which cannot be said in this instance. Regards,  Skomorokh  20:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The article has one image which gives what appears to be a reasonably good likeness of the subject: Larry Sanger. Does there need to be a screenshot from Citizendium here also if isn't free? No. Would it be nice if there were a free one? Yes. If someone wants to ask Citizendium for one, go ahead. Jonathunder (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Misleading quotations

This needs to be fixed, but I'm not sure how to do it. Under "Early Life and Education," someone has written: 'In high school, Sanger was asked, "What are you ever going to do with philosophy?' He said, 'Well, change the way the world thinks, for one thing.'[26]"

The source for these quotes is an article from the Anchorage Daily News. In it, the reporter wrote: "I can visualize the scene in his high school counselor's office when he announced his intended major. 'Kid,' I can hear the counselor say, 'What are you ever going to do with philosophy?' Well, change the way the world thinks, for one thing."

So clearly, the quotes are imagined by the reporter. Neither Sanger nor his counselor actually said those quotes. Anyone have a suggestion for how to rephrase, or should I just delete that passage entirely, as it is misleading? Juniperjoline1 (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the text. QuackGuru (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru. There was just one thing wrong--there should be no single quotes around the last sentence--that's the reporter's own comment--so I removed the quotes. Hope it makes sense for readers. Juniperjoline1 (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe that sentence was in quotes when I read the article before it was archived. The single quotes should be returned because the reporter put them in quotes like the other sentences. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)