Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 1

Uncategorized discussion

So I went to Talk:Jimmy Wales, and I don't see anything about Larry Sanger there. Wasn't Sanger listed on VfD? anthony 警告

Yeah, it's on VfD, so far with a consensus to keep. anthony 警告

I was applying the principle discussed on Talk:Jimmy Wales, which it appeared you were willing to agree to, for Larry Sanger as well. How am I supposed to know it's listed on VfD if nobody puts the notice up? If Larry warrants an encyclopedic article, then write one. Until then, it should redirect to his user page, because this "article" contains absolutely NO information that is not available there. --Michael Snow 17:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The principle on Jimmy Wales was that Jimbo asked not to be on Wikipedia. If Larry Sanger asks not to be on Wikipedia, then I'd agree not to include this page either. anthony 警告

Date of birth? - Woodrow 06:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello all,

This most recent edit by 63.230.158.214 is libellous. This is rather serious because I am going on the academic job market; the troll is trying to hit me where it hurts, namely my family's pocketbook.

I would rather not correct the allegations myself (that's a bit of a conflict of interest).

Best regards,
Larry Sanger

Larry, you only teach intro courses -- no libel there at all. 63.230.158.214

The most libelous change was something other than that. --Michael Snow 18:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As long as you remain anonymous and Larry Sanger signs his name, if he tells me that your statements are false I will disregard what you say. Could you come out of the closet and state your case so that this can be discussed in a civilized way instead of being just an edit war? Michael Hardy 21:28, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you start being civilized? Attacking anonymous users is not going to help the site. 63.230.158.214

Agreed--···---··· 03:53, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I did not attack anyone. I welcome anonymous users as editors of articles, but when there's a question of one person's testimony against another's and one is anonymous and the other identified, then I am inclined to disregard the anonymous one. That's what happened. That is not an "attack". Michael Hardy 18:38, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wert, SOS, or whatever you want to be called, your edits to the page are clearly not written in a style that complies with neutral point of view, which is the overriding policy of this site. They convey the impression that you are seeking not to present facts, but to slant the facts in a particular direction. If you would like to discuss what facts warrant including in this article and how best to present them, I recommend that you present your suggestions here on the talk page. --Michael Snow 18:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is a bit amusing. In fact, I am now teaching "Introduction to Theory of Knowledge," which has mostly seniors enrolled and is PHIL 460 at Ohio State. It is indeed introductory in the same sense that virtually all undergraduate courses are introductory. Similarly, next quarter I will be teaching "Introduction to Philosophy of Religion" and in the spring, "Introduction to Philosophy of Law." It would be more obviously correct to imply that I am teaching only introductory courses if I were only teaching the 100-level courses--which I also teach--like intro to philosophy (PHIL 101), intro to logic (PHIL 150), and intro to ethics (PHIL 130). So, probably, no concession need have been made. --Larry Sanger

P.S. it is also uncontroversially true that my area of specialization is epistemology, in the following sense (which is the usual sense in which the phrase is used): I am qualified to teach graduate courses in the area. (This isn't to say that I do teach graduate courses in the area, which I don't.) I wrote my dissertation in the area, and I am putting it down as my AOS on my CV, and to this latter no one in the department seems to have any objection.  ;-) --Larry Sanger

Agreed, "introductory" in a US university context normally implies 100-level courses that are prerequisites for the upper-division courses in that major. The title given to a particular course doesn't really enter into consideration. --Michael Snow 20:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy, I notice that you removed "conceived of" from the description of my relationship to the origin of Wikipedia. I didn't conceive of it? It seems to me I did; it was, in a very robust sense, my idea. You remember this, I'm sure. Not to say that it was my idea, in some form or other, would seem to leave out a pretty important historical fact. Had I not made the proposal for a wiki-based encyclopedia, Wikipedia would not exist. If this shouldn't be expressed by saying that I "conceived" of the project (maybe, maybe not), then how should this fact be expressed? (Bear in mind, what "conceived" might express is entirely apart from my key--but not unique---role in shepherding the project from a very rough initial conception to a much more refined conception.) --Larry Sanger

Michael (Snow): that's an improvement. Even more detail, from someone familiar with the details, would make it even better. But "until Bomis discontinued funding for his position" leaves open the possibility, and even might suggest to some readers, that I was fired. In fact, Bomis was hurting financially, due of course to the burst of the Internet bubble, and had to lay off most of its workers. I was the last of the workers from Bomis' salad days to be laid off (as far as I know). There was even some chance that my job would have continued on, supported by ad revenue, but that was never pursued, which is probably a good thing. Jimmy will confirm these things if necessary, I think. --Larry

I didn't think it had a connotation of being fired, but I've added some more information anyway. --Michael Snow 21:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

This needs to be reworded:

Recently Sanger has grown dissatisfied with the Wikipedia project;

First, I am not dissatisfied with the Wikipedia project; or, if I am, then anyone with criticisms of the project should be called "dissatisfied with the project," which doesn't seem right to me. Second, this is no recent thing. Even when I was managing the project I worked very hard to improve it in areas that I thought were its shortcomings.

I'm not sure how you might want to reword that.

claiming that it gives too much power to average people to create and edit articles and

This represents a total failure to understand the point of my article.

I fully support giving "average people" as much power as they have now, and perhaps even more, to create and edit articles on Wikipedia. I have never said otherwise.

instead

Not instead.

wishes to have a vetting system to ensure that the voices of authority, in a particular subject, cary more weight.

There are two different proposals which it seems you are combining. One is to (re-) adopt the old Wikipedia rule about respecting and giving some more deference to experts--in other words, as a community, to welcome them and try to work constructively with them. The other proposal is to have a vetting process that works independently of Wikipedia, that is either controlled by or prominently features experts. You know--expert review.

I have, of course, never supported any proposal for Wikipedia whereby "voices of authority" operate as specially privileged editors, with special control over content.

--Larry Sanger

---

Recently Sanger has has suggested that some vetting system be created to ensure that the voices of authority in each subject carry more weight.

Still not quite right, i.e., that is not what I recently suggested. It isn't a vetting system that would ensure that "voices of authority" (why do authorities have "voices"?) carry more weight in Wikipedia itself. Plain good sense and politeness, enshrined in a policy whereby experts are regarded as particularly welcome, is what would give bona fide experts more authority in Wikipedia itself (when, of course, they are writing about their areas of expertise). The vetting system would serve a different function. Moreover, probably the most important point in the article is that Wikipedia is, at present, an anti-elitist project, in which experts are not made to feel welcome. --LMS

Plain good sense and politeness, enshrined in a policy whereby experts are regarded as particularly welcome, is what would give bona fide experts more authority in Wikipedia itself (when, of course, they are writing about their areas of expertise).

You could say "does give" instead of "would give", since that's pretty much what happens in the field of mathematics. If it's not happening in the field of philosophy, then that field hasn't yet caught up with mathematics in Wikipedia.

I'm not surprised that my recent edit fails to capture your position, since it was a five-second effort based only on your recent comments on this page.

To say that experts are not made to feel welcome is simply not true in mathematics on Wikipedia; it's too general a statement. Michael Hardy 23:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Larry - why don't you edit the bit about the bit about the vetting system? After all you're the local expert at what your own opinion is ;). In this instance, us peroles won't mind if an expert takes over - just keep it in a NPOV ;)

Indeed, I suspect a certain famous musician of being the anonymous editor of a Wikipedia article about herself, and I know a certain physicist anonymously edited a Wikipedia article about a book that he wrote. Michael Hardy 00:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't think a link to a subpage of Cunctator's user page is appropriate in the text of an encyclopedia article. I will also go ahead and edit the article, as suggested above, to reflect the gist of my Kuro5hin article. --Larry Sanger

co-founder

I don't think the fact that Larry Sanger was a paid employee of Wikipedia is enough reason to say he could not have been the co-founder. One would need more information. Michael Hardy 00:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Jimmy Wales:

Because Sanger was Wales' employee, Wales considers himself the sole founder of Wikipedia, though Sanger continues to call himself the 'co-founder'.

To avoid POV, "co-founder" must remain in quotes, at least until Sanger can provide sufficient legal evidence, if any, to support his claim to fame.

For example, the mission statement for the Immortality Institute is quoted for NPOV purposes. Adraeus 00:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it needs to be taken out of the article. Quote from Wales:

"It is not correct to say that 'With Larry Sanger, Wales in 2001 founded...' I founded Wikipedia, Larry just worked for me. The idea for using a wiki orginally came to me from an employee -- Jeremy Rosenfeld. I am adding a note to the Bomis article's talk page about this one as well." --Jimbo Wales 18:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

link

--Alterego 01:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo himself clarified that this mention of the wiki technology by another employee did non have a _causal_ effect on the creation of Wikipedia, which Larry's suggestion did in fact have. --AstroNomer 13:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

To satisfy NPOV it is necessary to include both Wales' and Sanger's views on the origins of/idea for Wikipedia. Otherwise the article would need an NPOV tag, as it would be biased toward the view of either Wales or Sanger. Hedley 15:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Read the second sentence of the introduction. NPOV satisfied. Adraeus 19:23, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Did bomis or Jimmy pay Larry? Isn't that important in this founder discussion? StephanSchmidt 14:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The article now begins as follows:

Larry Sanger, born Lawrence Mark Sanger on July 16, 1968 in Bellevue, Washington and raised in Anchorage, Alaska, was employed by Jimmy Wales with Bomis, founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia, as "Editor-in-Chief" of Nupedia. Sanger believes he co-founded Wikipedia alongside Wales; however, Wales rejects this suggestion entirely and maintains that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia. Sanger was the only paid editor of Wikipedia, a status he held from January 15, 2001, until his resignation on March 1, 2002.

This is neutral? Clearly not. It is a rather poor thanks for what work I did to set up the community and policies that Wikipedia continues to follow and under which it has thrived. I am going to point out a few things, with which you can do as you will--I am far beyond expecting justice:

• Wikipedia was my idea: I proposed it, that proposal directly led to the instigation of the website, I got everybody together, and I drafted most of the original policies that are still followed today. Jimmy paid me to get Wikipedia started, which I did (and which uncontroversial fact the article, amazingly, does not even state until the second paragraph); in the first year, Jimmy was involved but frankly he had relatively little to do with it beyond paying my salary. This is all detailed in my history of the project, which memoir would be good to link to from within the body of the article. Instead, the first mentioned fact after my name and birthdate is that I was "employed by Jimmy Wales with Bomis, founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia." Is that why there is a Wikipedia article about me? A truly neutral account would begin with a statement of whatever reasons there are for there being a Wikipedia article about me, in terms that everyone can agree with. If the word "founder" is a point of dispute, then describe it in some other way. The "founder" dispute does not necessarily even have to be mentioned in the article, although I find it interesting that Jimmy had no problem about my being identified as "co-founder" until late 2004, and only then was the article about me changed to reflect the new reality.
• The first and second paragraphs cover the same territory, redundantly.
• My title was indeed editor-in-chief of Nupedia; I don't know why the scare quotes are there. Does one of the people working on the article somehow find it doubtful that I was?
• I was not "editor" of Wikipedia at all. That is a title I always and consistently rejected, and editing was not the reason for which I was paid. It would be more accurate to call me the project's organizer--that's why Jimmy hired me.
• My resignation came only after Bomis lost the means to pay me, which seems important to say, if you are going to mention that I resigned, specifically, at all.

--user:Larry Sanger

additional note at end. +sj +

Notability and sources

Since I just nominated Tim Shell for AFD, I was asked on IRC if I felt Larry notable. I do. Mostly because he's notable outside of wikipedia. And, he started it with Jimbo. He has to be somewhere near as notable as Jimbo. However, since Larry was involved with Wikipedia, I feel there is a strong likelihood that this article contains a lot of original research. There are no sources referenced. Please find some refernecse for this article. :) --Phroziac^(talk) 01:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

New encyclopedia project for Larry?

This Technology Reviewarticle mentions that Larry is involved in a new encyclopedia project. I've always been interested on Larry's views about Wikipedia, so it would be cool to find ou t what this project is. Maybe it should also be mentioned in this article. Pcb21 Pete 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.digitaluniverse.net I think, see [1] Aldie 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This is right, however, what the article says,

In 2005 his involvement in a new encyclopedia project, Digital Universe, was revealed. To be launched in early 2006, this project plans to bring in recognized experts to certify the accuracy of user-submitted articles as well as to write articles themselves.

is only slightly misleading, because the Digital Universe is not just an encyclopedia project. It's big and complicated to explain, and various press releases and stuff will explain it over the coming weeks and months. We're going to start a blog soon, too, to make sure some more accurate info comes out.  :-) --Larry Sanger 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No longer at OSU

I wouldn't want to edit my article after certain recent events, but I should let you know that I left OSU in June, and since then I have been employed full-time working on behalf of the Digital Universe Foundation. --Larry Sanger 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Just read an article about WP in the Village Voice. It seemed like a good opportunity to quote a source outside the WP community on this issue. IronDuke 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but simply quoting a whole paragraph of the article isn't the way to do this. --Larry Sanger 19:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay... I'm open to suggestion. IronDuke 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK: read many credible sources carefully, then summarize them intelligently. Also, find a more descriptive title than "controversy." --Larry Sanger 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, Larry, I’m giving it a whirl, although with some trepidation. The reason I just dumped a graf from some other source into the article like that is that this issue is rather delicate, and I don’t want to appear to be taking anyone’s side and therefore did not want to summarize the issues myself. I was hesitant to contribute to this page at all, knowing that it was likely being watched by a lot of people with a lot of contradictory views, and that many of these people could easily ban me if they perceived me to be “siding” with someone in this debate. So let me say this: I had nothing to do with the founding of Nupedia or Wikipedia, and do not know Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales, or Jeremy Rosenfeld (although it is quite possible, for reasons I can elaborate later, that I have met one of the above parties and just don’t remember it). Let me also state for the record that I have no desire to get at the “truth” of what happened, because I do not have and can never really have any way of knowing this. It is possible, in that Wales and Sanger appear to disagree over Wikipedia’s origins, that they are both lying, that only one of them is lying, or that one or both are honestly misremembering what transpired, or (perhaps most likely) that they are both in some way “right,” but choosing to emphasize different elements of the story. IronDuke 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I dare not edit this page ;-) so could someone please put up a link to User:Larry Sanger/Origins of Wikipedia? TIA. --Larry Sanger

Wiki-Anarchists?

I read on Larry's userpage that he discourages wiki-anarchists; what in the world is a wiki-anarchist? Canaen 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope it isn't someone who reads the discussion page closely to see how much the "experts" are fibbing. Whoever writes the main articles, thanks for the discussion page for revealing bias and lack of facts - following the links ( or noticing the bias there also - frequently have to find your own ) is a great tool. The "new" wiki direction ( in Drudge ) looks like an attempt to have paralysis/editing by "experts" - the PC crowd looks like they are getting distressed by hearing that the whole world isn't swallowing their worm in one gulp. PhD - my professor said it means Piled Higher and Deeper - it is rarely a measure of IQ or even knowledge ie "the best and the brightest". My one suggestion is that the main page remain unchanged - unedited - forever. Don't let the "expert" ever run away from some idiot article - like global warming, etc, that way we can weed out the "experts".

Textop

Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the fact that I am now (as part of my DU duties) Director of the Text Outline Project; see http://www.textop.org/ --Larry Sanger 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Banned user Amorrow

Banned user Amorrow is editing this article. I'm going to revert all his edits. I sprotected the article for now. --FloNight ^talk 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So? There wasn't anything wrong with the edits themselves. I note that you've also removed the POV tag and a few good style edits. What's the justification for removing all this positive work? Chris Cunningham 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, If you look in the history you will see a reply placed here by Amorrow. If you read it you may understand the reason that he is no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia articles. Jimbo stated that Amorrow's edits should be removed on sight. Period. This is widely supported by the community. If you want to improve the article by adding or removing content, go right ahead. Be careful to follow copyright law. FloNight ^talk 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I just saw it. While I respect the desire to keep people who make things personal out of the community, every change made here was legitimate. I'm reverting to the pre-moderated version, and I'm going to try to cherry-pick the best bits of the now-reverted History of Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The current revert farce

I'm disinclined to go running around after moderators reading up on past disputes, but from what I've seen the "revert on sight" edict is meant for destuctive edits. If this isn't correct, whatever, but my own edits (including what was a needed POV tag at the time) have been caught up in an overzealous revert job (the revert in question appears to go all the way back to 65866405). I'd like it made clear exactly which edits to this article were unwanted and to have only those changes reverted, please. Chris Cunningham 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any part of your changes that I agree with. Maybe there was something minor that was okay but, again, I didn't see it. IronDuke 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That's because you didn't look at the history. here's a link to the changes I made myself. Chris Cunningham 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One of us is confused (and I'm willing to accept it may be me). The version I reverted was not the current article, it was this. IronDuke 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, I apologize if I did not make myself clear to you before. All of this banned users edits are to be removed on sight. You can add back your edits including the pov tag. You can not revert to a version of the article that includes Amorrow's edits. FloNight ^talk 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. ; - ) FloNight ^talk 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have to say that the latest iteration of the "Authorship of the Wikipedia concept" section is rather biased against me, and does not represent all sorts of very relevant, well-established, and undisputed facts about my role in the creation of Wikipedia. It does me no service to report that I "claim" and "maintain" various things, particularly when these things have been reported and were clear and undisputed for a few years, before Jimmy started denying them; it is hardly as if I am the only person who believes these things about myself. For the relevant objective evidence, please see this discussion and follow the links I've provided. You can also follow the links in my memoir. The fact that Jimmy now variously denies or is silent about my seminal role in the project, self-servingly, when he did not for several years after the start of the project, should not be reason for you not to report easily verifiable facts such as you can find in news articles and Wikipedia archives. --Larry Sanger 04:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This article is now clearly out of date in several respects. See this Guardian article for the latest. --LMS

Hello Larry : - ) The article was recently edited by a banned user. It has been reverted multiple times likely making it a poor read. Unless someelse has already fixed it, in the morning I'll look at your sources and rewrite it accordingly. --FloNight ^talk 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, what service! --Larry Sanger 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert without discussion and consensus

The subject of the article has requested that the article be updated and several sections be rewritten. I am going to update the article and make other changes as needed. Help from other editors is encouraged. If there is disagreement about the wording, we need to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page. Please discuss instead of reverting. FloNight ^talk 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The changes made since the 26/07 edit were stylistic only; it's blatantly obvious from the diff. Chris Cunningham 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham, no that is not correct. There are changes in the wording that introduce the problem that Larry Sanger raised in the above post. According to WP:BLP, the article should be written in the least harmful way that accurately reflects the material. The subject of the article objects to the wording. Several other editors besides myself have reverted you in in the past several days. Please, do not edit war over the content of a biography of a living person. Instead, listen to a recording (or read a transcript) of Jimbo's keynote speech at Wikimania. He discusses the importance of making sure article about living people are well written. He strongly encourages us to error on the side of caution. FloNight ^talk 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If the Jimmy Wales article was Jesus, then Larry Sanger's article would be Judas. What's so special about this Wales guy that he gets a 20 page article while Sanger gets a couple of sentances?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.205 (talk • contribs) 12:22, October 29, 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sanger the GodKing?

I, for one, believe that Larry Sanger is a GodKing. According to Wikipedia's rules, noone should start an article about themselves, but according to the history of this page, Larry Sanger himself started the page. This is but one of many things that he has done. I'm willing to bet that anyone who reads this and checks back within at least a week will find it deleted, and me banned on charges of vandalism. Join the movement for a better wikipedia! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rurounigoku78 (talk • contribs) .

The facts according to Wikipedia press releases and page histories

I'd like to point out, for the benefit of those working on this article and related articles, that according to Wikipedia's own first three press releases, until 2004--including two press releases that I didn't have anything at all to do with--I was billed as a founder of Wikipedia. See:

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

Also, until 2004 or 2005, all of the articles about me, Wikipedia, History of Wikipedia, and even Jimmy gave me billing as co-founder of Wikipedia. Just thought it might be useful to point this out for those who weren't aware of it. --Larry Sanger 20:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As the description of Sanger as a founder of Wikipedia was disputed on the article, I've added one of the above Wikipedia press releases - which describe him as one of the two founders of Wikipedia - as the citation for the description of 'founder' (which is accurate) Normally, I'd remove a self-reference on sight, but it's pretty much the only time the correct place for one. It's also accurate to note that since Sanger left, Wales has been very keen to describe him as anything other than founder, which we also have referenced. Yay for referencing. Proto::► 22:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since I drafted that press release (even if Jimmy signed off on it, which I assume he did), that doesn't really support the point so well as press releases 2 and 3, which I had nothing to do with at all, and which, for all I know, Jimmy himself drafted. --Larry Sanger 21:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking closely at the histories of the press releases, it appears press releases 2 & 3 were derived in sequence from the one that Larry drafted (see [2] and [3]). So in that sense Larry did have something to do with releases 2 & 3, and in particular, he was the original author of the sentence that attributed himself as founder. That sentence survived into the later press releases with mutations. Of course, we can argue that there was the implicit assent of everyone who edited the subsequent articles, who could have altered it to de-attribute Larry, but equally they may all either have overlooked it or have had no knowledge of the issue. Therefore, I don't think we should use this particular source in that way; it feels ... unsound. (Disclaimer: my POV on this issue is "I've no idea"). — Matt Crypto 21:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Matt Crypto," they are perfectly suitable to establish the modest point I was trying to establish, namely, that Wikipedia itself as a corporate entity, so to speak, spoke quite consistently and with a single voice that I am co-founder until 2004. Add to the press releases the histories of the other articles, and this becomes perfectly obvious. This is not a matter of any reasonable dispute whatsoever. Once you have looked at the sources, to imply anything contrary to this fact is to engage in pretty egregious intellectual dishonesty. --Larry Sanger 07:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my assertion that it is unsound to use those press releases in the manner previously used in this article, because the statement attributing yourself as founder was originally authored by yourself. — Matt Crypto 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You ignore two obvious and very salient points, "Matt Crypto," to wit, I did not author press releases 2 or 3--someone else did, whether or not they borrowed from #1 is irrelevant--and, in any case, Jimmy Wales himself obviously passed off on all three press releases. Furthermore, I wasn't the only one saying this about my role. Many other people described my role as founder as well, as early as 2001 in fact. --Larry Sanger 09:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the quotes in "Matt Crypto"? Odd, given that you didn't put AstroNomer in quotes. Anyway, consider how we view encyclopedia articles built in a wiki. We would certainly consider an article to be partly authored by someone even if someone else had later made modifications. So if a press release is derived from something you wrote, then there is some sense in which you are an "author", or whatever term we want to use. Press releases 2 & 3, which may well, I grant you, have been carefully scrutinised and then approved by Jimbo (I've no idea), but I think their origin means they are not as supportive of your position as they might otherwise be if, say, Jimbo himself had written such a press release from scratch. Therefore, I think it is unsound to present them in an article as evidence without mentioning their origin. — Matt Crypto 18:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What difference does it make whether Jimmy wrote them or not? They are official communications of his organization. Anyway, look at Talk:Citizendium for more. --Larry Sanger 20:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(moved from Talk:Citizendium) You could use the guardian, CNet and the New York Times as reliable sources showing you are co-founder. yandman 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the pro-"co-founder" side has presented some pretty good evidence. However, the subject does still seem to be disputed, so, under the normal Wikipedia provisions for handling such disagreements, I think we still can't simply describe Sanger as a co-founder. How about a compromise via something like, "described in early Wikipedia press releases as its co-founder."—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone besides Jimmy Wales disputing it? Is there any reasoning given why it's only been recently disputed, and that these documents exist listing Sanger as a co-founder? How much proof would be necessary to ignore Wales disagreement with this term, or is Wales disagreement on it's own enough to leave this in the air? Dstanfor 21:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger are key witnesses to the events of the time, and, if they disagree, then the topic is disputed. What would be needed to settle it would be additional eyewitness testimony from neutral parties.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about one of the very first Wikipedians, AstroNomer? See: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-April/039160.html --Larry Sanger 09:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So a company's formal media releases are not reliable sources for information about the company? That doesn't seem right. Proto::► 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They most certainly are. Who said they weren't?—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Does the recentness of the dispute merit a mention? If Sanger has been saying he's a cofounder since at least 2002, and Wales doesn't start disputing this until late 2004 at the earliest, what's the reason on the time discontinuity? What's the explanation for why the official Wikipedia press releases saying Sanger's a co-founder if he really isn't? Dstanfor 21:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that should be discussed under Larry_Sanger#Issues_regarding_the_authorship_of_the_Wikipedia_concept. What's more at stake here is how to describe Mr. Sanger's role in cases where space is at a premium, such as in the intro to this article or to Citizendium. As for why the inconsistency exists, you'd have to ask Mr. Wales or some other witness to the same events. I could speculate on why, though.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As someone who otherwise doesn't know much about this issue, I will say that Mr. Sanger's claim that he was not involved at all in the second two press releases is slightly dubious. They are obviously derivative of the first press release which he admits he authored. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales' organizations, first Wikipedia in 2003 and then Wikimedia in 2004, deliberately chose to describe me as co-founder. Sorry, but there's nothing ambiguous about that at all. The fact that they continued with the position (not, mind you, the precise wording) of the 2002 release only shows that they remained in agreement with the organization's position in 2002. --Larry Sanger 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

that implies that Sangar put it in there, and then for a year and a half there was no real oversight from the other co-founder in the press releases made by the wikipedia organization, to correct this alleged mistake in the press releases.

This is where I think things stand: For the first 2 - 2 and a half years of wikipedia's existance, the organization of wikipedia called Sangar a founder at least partially from Sangar's writing that he was a founder. This includes some time after Sangar was no longer working with/for the wikipedia organization. More recently (I don't know what date) Jimbo Wales has started disputing that Sangar deserves the title co-founder, and should be referred to only as an employee of his. At this point Sangar and others have tried to show evidence that the Wikipedia organization did call him a co-founder for a while, with the implied question that if he wasn't, why wasn't this questioned earlier on? As far as I've found, this question has not been addressed by anyone, including Jimmy Wales. Because of Sangar's direct input into some of the proof (the press releases), some editors on this page are implying that this was a mistake that took 2 and a half years to be caught. Dstanfor 18:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good summary of where things stand. My view is that the press releases are not as strong as evidence as Larry Sanger is touting it -- did Wikipedia "deliberately choose" to describe Sanger as co-founder in the 2003/4 press releases, as he puts it? Mmmm...that's not at all a safe deduction, in my opinion. What inference can we draw from from the fact that Sanger's original assertion remained for two press releases? Can we deduce that Wikipedia made an explicit and deliberate choice to describe him that way? Maybe, maybe not. Could it just have been an oversight? Maybe. Did the press releases always completely reflect Jimbo's thoughts on the matter? What about the thoughts of all Wikipedians as a collective group? I can think of several explanations of varying plausibility, but not all of them support Sanger's position. If Sanger wants to make a claim to be co-founder, then there's a better argument to be made than triumphantly pointing to a statement he himself originally authored; have a look at his web page on the topic, for a start. — Matt Crypto 19:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, Matt, but it doesn't respond to the basic argument, namely, that they were the official press releases of the organization that gave us billing as co-founders. The organization then changed its long standing (two year long) practice. There's no need to speculate about what the contents of Jimmy Wales' head were; we're talking about an organization, and what an organization is made to say--not a person. --Larry Sanger 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

We agree that they "were the official press releases of the organization", and later official statements differed. All well and good, but the question then becomes "so what?" What conclusion can we draw? The conclusion that you appear to advocate is you should be described as "co-founder" and that history is being rewritten by Wikipedia. The problem is that the press releases are not strong evidence for that, for the reasons given above. It's possible that "some of those associated with the project have found it convenient to downplay and even deny your crucial, formative involvement". It's also possible that you had exaggerated your role in the creation of Wikipedia (for example, by attributing yourself in a press-release) and the record was then corrected. My own view leans towards the former, but I think you're not being completely forthright in your press release argument. — Matt Crypto 11:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think several conclusions are quite obvious. One is that I was co-founder of Wikipedia, according to Wikipedia and Wikimedia as organizations. Another is, indeed, that Wikipedia has officially rewritten its own history, and a change of press releases is obviously among the very best evidence one can give of such a thing. Another is that, quite simply, in 2002, 2003, and early 2004, if you would have asked those "in the know" about who the founder(s) of Wikipedia is (are), they would have said, "Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales" (not necessarily in that order). Anyway, I'm done with you, "Matt Crypto." --Larry Sanger 01:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course Larry Sanger is a co-founder of Wikipedia--this fact was trumpeted during the early years of Wikipedia. No amount of whitewashing or revisionism is going to change that. To stumble upon a discussion questioning this startled me because I and many others always assumed his co-founder role was well known.A305w 17:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that this fact has changed. Just as articles and facts change over time at Wikipedia, this has done the same. Oh well. --Tom 17:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)