
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 co-founded Wikipedia alongside Wales; however, Wales rejects this reality entirely and claims that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia on the sole basis that Sanger worked for him even though the concept of Wikipedia sprang from the mind of Sanger. He proposed it, and his proposition directly led to the creation of the website. Sanger was the only paid editor of Wikipedia, a status he held from January 15, 2001, until his resignation on March 1, 2002. Sanger received his B.A. in philosophy from Reed College in 1991 and Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy from Ohio State University in 2000. His doctoral thesis concerned ''Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification.'' ==Wikipedia== Sanger was hired as editor-in-chief of Nupedia by Wales' company, Bomis. Responding to frustrations with the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was History of Wikipedia. By virtue of his position with Nupedia, Sanger spearheaded and named the project, and formulated much of the original policy. ===Departure=== For the next year, Sanger continued to work on and promote both the Nupedia and Wikipedia projects until Bomis had to discontinue funding for his position in February 2002. Sanger resigned as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and as "chief organizer" of Wikipedia (he never claimed an official title) shortly thereafter. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/My_resignation--Larry_Sanger] Sanger's stated reason for ending his participation in Wikipedia and Nupedia as a volunteer were that he could not do justice to the task as a part-time volunteer; later [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25] he admitted that there had existed "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project" which had also accounted for his departure. Nupedia made little progress without his leadership and shut down the following year, but Wikipedia continued to grow and gain momentum. In December 2004 Sanger wrote a critical article for the website Kuro5hin. [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25] While claiming "to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well," Sanger maintained that there are serious problems with the project. There was, he wrote, a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project put "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" into too much prominence; these problems, he maintained, were a feature of the project's "anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise." The article was the subject of much controversy in the blogosphere and led to some reaction in the news media as well. ==After Wikipedia== Meanwhile, Sanger has rejoined the academic world and is currently a lecturer at Ohio State University, where he teaches philosophy courses. His professional interest is epistemology with concentrations in 17th-century philosophy and ethics. In his spare time, he plays and teaches music of Ireland on the fiddle in Columbus, Ohio and Dayton, Ohio, Ohio. Sanger was the founder and executive editor of "Sanger's Review of Y2K News Reports" (formerly at sangersreview.com [http://web.archive.org/web/20001025181634/http%3A//www.sangersreview.com/]), a resource for Y2K watchers, and also manages a site about the Donegal fiddle tradition. ==External links== *[http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/ Academic home page of Larry Sanger] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger Wikipedia user page of Larry Sanger] *[http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm Personal Statement about Wikipedia's Reliability] (December 2004) *m:User:Larry Sanger—On m:Main Page. ("Possibly outdated", he says.) *[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6464/hmpg.html Donegal Fiddle Pages]. *[http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/larrysanger/diss/index.html ''Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification''] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Larry%27s_Text Introductory philosophy lectures] from Sanger's 1998 course at Ohio State University (many of these have been greatly edited from Sanger's originals—"as they should be", he says.) * [http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/issue/forward30105.asp?trk=nl Larry Sanger’s Knowledge Free-for-All]—Technology review article * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias] Kuro5hin (July 25, 2001 op-ed article) * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense?] Kuro5hin (September 24, 2001 op-ed article) *[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism] Kuro5hin (December 31, 2004 op-ed article) *[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir] and [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95 Part II] Slashdot (April 18-19, 2005) 1968 births Entrepreneurs Wikipedia history
==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? User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning :Yeah, it's on VfD, so far with a consensus to keep. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 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. --User: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. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning Date of birth? - User:Calmypal 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. User:63.230.158.214 :The most libelous change was something other than that. --User: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? User: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. User:63.230.158.214 Agreed--User:Sending out an SOS 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". User: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 Wikipedia: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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) ::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#I_wa%20s_.2Athis_close.2A_to_editing_myself link] ::--User: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. --User: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. User:Hedley 15:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :Read the second sentence of the introduction. NPOV satisfied. User:Adraeus 19:23, May 21, 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 [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss 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
Dear Wikipedians, I'm no longer associated with Wikipedia, which I co-founded. You can read my own account of my involvement with Wikipedia and Nupedia, "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir," here: * [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss Part I] * [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&from=rss Part II] Links to some of my other writings about the project can be found at Larry Sanger. I can be reached at blarneypilgrim (a t) yahoo (d o t) com. --Larry Sanger, April 21, 2005 P.S. Here's what I posted when I left in 2002. Still good advice: All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you ''continue'' * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular, * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an ''encyclopedia,'' not on Usenet-style debate, * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced, * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project, * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will, * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. user:Larry Sanger/Archive
''Contents of old User page:'' My name is Larry Sanger and I was (with User:Jimbo Wales) instigator of Wikipedia, and the first (and so far only) editor-in-chief of Nupedia. I'm responsible for the original concept and the name "Wikipedia" and a lot of the original formulations of Wikipedia's most basic policy. Since funding for my salary ran out, leading to my departure in March 2002, I can take no credit and no blame for changes that have occurred since then. Ph.D. 2000, M.A. 1995, Philosophy, Ohio State University. B.A. 1991 Philosophy, Reed College. Home town is Anchorage, Alaska. Please have a look at (and spread around links to) this [http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm Personal Statement about Wikipedia's Reliability]. I can be reached at blarneypilgrim (a t) yahoo (d o t) com. All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you ''continue'' * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular, * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an ''encyclopedia,'' not on Usenet-style debate, * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced, * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project, * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will, * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. I set up an [http://www.seeatown.com/search/ encyclopedia meta-search engine] (dead link ?). I hope you'll find it useful when researching Wikipedia articles. If you are spending too much time on Wikipedia, you could always use my [http://www.seeatown.com/halog/ Human Activity Logger] (dead link ?)to help you toward more self-discipline! ;-) Historical note: :Until December 2001, I was a full-time paid employee of Bomis, spending most of my work time (especially in the latter part of 2001) on Wikipedia. As of February 1, 2002, I was no longer paid at all; I made [http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Announcement_about_my_involvement_in_Wikipedia_and_Nupedia--Larry_Sanger an announcement] explaining that I'd continue on as a part-time volunteer. On March 1, 2002, I resigned responsibility for leading Wikipedia and as editor-in-chief of Nupedia; my reasons are given in my [http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=My+resignation--Larry+Sanger letter of resignation to the community]. To reiterate, primarily I needed this extra time to find a job, and I felt that I could not work effectively as a leader when I am working only as a part-time volunteer. I participated in mailing list discussions and on the wiki to a small extent in the fall of 2002, but since December 2002 have drifted away. ---- Text from the old talk:Larry_Sanger page: Larry - I think there is a partial consensus (oxymoron?) that when disputes arise you are the nearest thing to an arbitrator there is. I don't know if we have (or need) a formal system of arbitration. ---- I don't see a ''very'' large consensus yet, and I don't see a need to make it official in any case. --LMS ---- I am not opposed to establishing a voluntary system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia, but there is a very real danger that establishing any formal system of arbitration/mediation will lay the groundwork for establishing a hierarchical power structure here. At the same time, the best argument for establishing a formal policy regarding arbitration/mediation is to make certain that procedural safeguards are put into place to prevent anyone from establishing a hierarchical power structure. Beyond the naked fact that Bomis hosts Wikipedia and that certain people who have made it past a probationary period are allowed to request Wikipedia administrator privileges from Bomis, there seems to be very little formal structure here. People make changes to articles as they see fit, and when a conflict arises, people are forced to work it out amongst themselves. I am reminded of how ODP first established "voluntary editor mediation" to resolve disputes between editors. Very quickly, this voluntary mediation process evolved into a ''de facto'' process for enforcement of the ODP Guidelines by ODP's meta editors. Meanwhile, the ODP Guidelines themselves went from being a recapitulation of the consensus of the volunteer editors to a strict code of conduct which was determined by ODP staff, and ODP devolved into a Lord of the Flies subculture. The question remains as to whether it is necessary to establish a formal system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia. I think it is, but not to resolve disputes. Rather, it should be established with appropriate procedural safeguards to protect the rights of individuals to wikipedia:Ignore all rules.--user:netesq ---------------------------- If you want a list of "24"'s contributions, you might do worse than take a look at User:24.150.61.63. -- Anon. Oh boy--time to get out the shovels. --User:Larry Sanger ---- Hello Mr. Sanger. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and have only now put together the history behind the project. I'm saddened by the way you were compelled to resign. Really it's just one of thousands of saddening stories accompanying the bursting of the Internet bubble, but it's just a shame that excellent work like this really can't find decent remuneration and I guess it won't change soon. I'd like to personally thank you, though, for your crucial role in creating Wikipedia and sustaining it in its infancy. It's a real achievement that can never be deleted from your past... I have a vague hope that the project will be transferred from Bomis (which, judging from its rather laughable website is not long for this world) to a company that can support it while understanding there's no chance of its making money for years. I think such a company would be very keen to try to get you back. Anyway, I was hoping that if you have the time and inclination you might go to talk:Race and give your input on a dispute I'm having with another writer. It started out being slightly ad-hominem but we've got that under control now. I think the balance I'm trying to bring to the article is important and hope you'll agree and maybe put in a few words to that effect. The other guy has threatened to blow away some very carefully crafted stuff I added and I hope a word from you will give him pause. I know it's not your job anymore and I ask mostly because I think you'll find it interesting. Thanks -- User:JDG 17:35 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC) ---- Thanks for your kind words. I can tell you that Bomis (Jimbo Wales) would never, as long as they can afford it, want to give up sponsoring Wikipedia. Whatever you might think of Bomis.com, they put well over a hundred thousand dollars (various salaries, mainly) into the project of building a free encyclopedia, and lack of funds for my salary notwithstanding, continue to support it very well. It's a feather in Jimbo's cap and by golly, he can and ''ought'' to wear it proudly. I would not want to come back to lead Wikipedia. It is unleadable. Certain characters, who would be delighted if I named them by name so I won't, made my job quite unpleasant due to their constant attacks on my (very modest) attempts to exert some authority or influence (and thus do my job). I ''would'' like to come back and lead a different ''Nu''pedia, though. It was rather sad that it worked out precisely as it did, but here's the story--in January 2001, I started Wikipedia when Nupedia had just gone live with its new system. Even by then I knew that Nupedia's editorial mechanism had become too cumbersome, and indeed Wikipedia was one of the ideas to supplement it. Over the next months, through the spring and summer of 2001, I started spending more and more time on Wikipedia, at first just because it really needed the guidance, and later because Jimmy specifically asked me to spend as much time on Wikipedia as possible, because it seemed to be the project that really had a going chance of succeeding. In the fall and early winter of 2001 on Nupedia-L and Advisory-L (Nupedia's advisory board mailing list) we had a discussion and vote on a new editorial system for Nupedia. By then my time allotted to Nupedia was practically zilch; so, before January 2002, when I was on half pay and half time, and February 2002 when money ran out entirely, I didn't have enough time to get Nupedia going again under the new plan. I have run the idea by Jimmy that I simply completely take over the Nupedia project (I would actually buy the thing from him) but he doesn't like the idea. He has assured me that he will get it running again, soon, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't get me wrong--I think Jimbo's heart is in the right place, he just doesn't have enough time to manage the projects he's started. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is more or less self-managing. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not step into the race debate... --User:Larry Sanger :I'd agree that Wikipedia is unleadable under current rules. I don't think any community can survive when there's no mechanism to shut down those who disrupt it at the foundations. Pure unpoliced egalitarianism runs up against one enduring fact of human nature: there will always be those who dedicate themselves to undermining the careful labor and cooperative spirit of others. It's just in their bones. If the finance situation were to turn around somehow and you could come back, there would need to be some new and startling by-laws. Heading the list would be a provision allowing you to propose a ban of anyone (perhaps for something like 2 months the first time, permanently the second time) who you feel is sytematically hindering your work. This proposal would be put to a vote by Wikipedians in which your vote alone counts for 10% of the vote total (if 300 people voted, your vote would be 30 votes)... It's sad there are people like Cunctator who are sly enough not to commit outright vandalism but who can make the leader's life miserable. In the Old West they had a phrase: "That man needs killin'", applied to people who gummed up the whole works by setting people and families against each other. Usually the offender was run out on a rail rather than actually killed. Online collaboration is settling a frontier and no frontier was ever settled without a supply of tar and feathers.-- User:JDG I think the community--and this includes me, by the way--has made it clear enough that money for Wikipedia would not go first and foremost to the salary of anything like an editor. You might not know this, but I am as responsible as anyone for the current extremely liberal banning policy. While I was managing Wikipedia, while I did pretty much immediately ban anyone who was obviously just a vandal (often, though, I'd wait for at least two infractions), and while I often ''threatened'' miscreants with banning and told certain individuals privately that they should just leave (e.g., that was the case with Helga, many months before things came to a head for her), in fact the first person who was actually ''banned'' from the project was "24," by Jimbo. Generally, I support the current policy of having public discussion of outright bans (not just recommendations and threats) and then doing it only after really serious consideration--and only in the most egregious cases. Your proposal, to give me the power to ban people who are thorns in my side, would receive virtually no support from anyone now in the project. I would oppose it myself, or rather, if given such a power and I had my old job back, I wouldn't use it. That just isn't the way forward. Please have a look at the Wikipedia-L archives from last August or September, in which I brought up the issue of mediocre quality and how to deal with it. You'll find that I have a different sort of solution: we need to revive a different Nupedia. Wikipedians, in their hubris, think they have all the answers to making a great encyclopedia. In fact, they really ''need'' a Nupedia. --User:Larry Sanger :I take your points, but it was you who said Wikipedia is "unleadable". Maybe you meant it can grow into a solid resource without any leadership, but I don't know about that. Anyway, I realize I'm asking you to restate stuff you're probably tired of stating. It's just that I'm new to Wikipedia and in the first blush of fascination with the idea. At least you're still around in some form -- User:JDG Well, what you're saying makes total sense, from a certain point of view, and I didn't mean to say it didn't. Some of the stuff I said above in fact I said for the first time, actually, and you're the first person in a long time to suggest that we need more centralized control. Wikipedia does have the leadership of a shifting group of people who happen to be most active and well-respected in the project. They're not elected, though. They just take responsibility and work a lot. I do have some apprehension that, if we keep losing many of our best people, the overall quality of the project will decline. For one thing, I think people don't realize how important experts and academics are ''and have been'' for Wikipedia. Without them, I still maintain (as I maintained on Wikipedia-L), Wikipedia will probably never rise above a certain level of mediocrity, just as Everything2 never will. The question is whether ''some'' manner of leadership--whether from within Wikipedia or from some project independent of Wikipedia--is required to attract and retain such people. I suspect the answer is yes, so on that point I actually agree with you. --User:Larry Sanger ---- As resident philosopher, can you look at my description of the use of counterxamples in philosophy on Counterexample and make sure that it's reasonable? Thanks! — User:Toby Bartels 12:19 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC) It's reasonable! --User:Larry Sanger ---- Would you have a moment to check what is said about Analogy of being at the entry on Apophatic theology? I'm not sure that I've got it right. — User:Mkmcconn I really don't know anything about that--sorry. --User:Larry Sanger : Thank you anyway. I hope that doesn't mean that I've distorted beyond recognition, a topic you are in fact familiar with! — User:Mkmcconn 23:39 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC) ---- Larry, I've been reading about the "Problem of Induction" lately, and I'm now left with the impression that philosophers have put a lot more effort into figuring out the circumstances under which inductive reasoning is justified than those under which deductive reasoning is. In particular, while it seems very popular to be skeptical of the soundness of induction, deduction seems, for the most part, unquestionably acceptable in almost every case. (Provided fallacies are avoided, of course.) I'm wondering if, to help even the score, you could suggest any philosophers who either try to problematize deductive reasoning, or others who make a serious attempt to justify it. Surely this must keep ''someone'' up late at night. The most interesting things I've found along these lines are: # Lewis Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles" (in Godel, Escher, Bach) # Hofstadter's justification of the rules of first order logic (also somewhere in Godel, Escher, Bach). It's something along the lines of, "Don't these rules sound like what a sane person must believe? If you are sane, and you intuitively believe them, do you really need to question them?" Obviously I could find someone willing to argue about deduction if I go far enough afield, say, into postmodern literary theory. But that stuff doesn't strike me as terribly serious or compelling. --User:Ryguasu 04:33 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC) One of the best things on that question is my dissertation. ;-) Seriously, what my dissertation was about was the problem that the justification of induction and of deduction have in common. The leading view on the question you mention is that there's nothing wrong with the circularity involved in deductive justifications of deduction. The modern locus classicus of this view is Nelson Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Also, Susan Haack wrote an article called "The Justification of Deduction" in ''Mind.'' For the underlying issues, you could always [http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/larrysanger/diss/contents.html go here] and use your browser's search function to find "deduction" on the Chapter 3 page. --User:Larry Sanger ---- Larry, Thanks for the philosophy references. I've copied them to my user page now, in case you want to delete the above. On another note, you were right about the Lakoff page being a bunch of crap. I'm starting to fix it up. --User:Ryguasu 23:23 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC) In curious as to whether or not you had been following the Irish potato famine article and its related talk, and the issues of domineering bias permeating it... I feel Ive been compromising too much on the issue of British imperialism, and have some inkling that this has being done with the threat of my removal, for making my voice known. -User:Stevertigo ---- Larry, what was that page I just edited that I ''thought'' was ''this'' page? Anyway, to answer your question that by now you've probably forgotten asking: No, "Anglican Church" is not the same as "Church of England". All churches belonging to the Anglican Communion, and some that do not belong are Anglican churches. That includes the Episcopal Church in the USA, which is obviously not part of the Church of England. User:Michael Hardy 20:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- Hey Larry, if from time to time people have edited the article on identity and change, is it still the same article? (Do you still read this page? If not, then ignore this posting.) User:Michael Hardy 21:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Immanuel Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's ''Ding an Sich'' with the statement ''One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color).'' Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? User:Brianshapiro ---- on the talk page for the United Kingdom you say that the UK includes Great Britain, Northern Ireland ''and'' the channel islands and the isle of man. Just wanted to point out that this is very wrong, the UK is in fact just great britain plus northern ireland, the channel islands and Man are crown dependencies. User:Grunners 03:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
:I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:
:
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Larry_Sanger:
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger/And_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/And_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Archive
Larry_Sanger/Final_comments_archive,_maybe
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text/Anarchism_and_natural_law_theory
Larry_Sanger/Like_this
Larry_Sanger/More_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Obviously_bad_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Larry_Sanger/old
Larry_Sanger/old-LarrysText
Larry_Sanger/Old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Review_requests
Larry_Sanger/Still_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Traditionally_respectable_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Larry_Sanger/Will_these_comments_ever_stop
Larry_Sanger/Yet_more_old_comments
Larry Sanger
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 co-founded Wikipedia alongside Wales; however, Wales rejects this reality entirely and claims that he is the sole founder of Wikipedia on the sole basis that Sanger worked for him even though the concept of Wikipedia sprang from the mind of Sanger. He proposed it, and his proposition directly led to the creation of the website. Sanger was the only paid editor of Wikipedia, a status he held from January 15, 2001, until his resignation on March 1, 2002. Sanger received his B.A. in philosophy from Reed College in 1991 and Doctor of Philosophy in philosophy from Ohio State University in 2000. His doctoral thesis concerned ''Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification.'' ==Wikipedia== Sanger was hired as editor-in-chief of Nupedia by Wales' company, Bomis. Responding to frustrations with the slow progress of Nupedia, in January 2001 Sanger proposed the creation of a wiki to spur the development of articles, and the result of this proposal was History of Wikipedia. By virtue of his position with Nupedia, Sanger spearheaded and named the project, and formulated much of the original policy. ===Departure=== For the next year, Sanger continued to work on and promote both the Nupedia and Wikipedia projects until Bomis had to discontinue funding for his position in February 2002. Sanger resigned as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and as "chief organizer" of Wikipedia (he never claimed an official title) shortly thereafter. [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/My_resignation--Larry_Sanger] Sanger's stated reason for ending his participation in Wikipedia and Nupedia as a volunteer were that he could not do justice to the task as a part-time volunteer; later [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25] he admitted that there had existed "a certain poisonous social or political atmosphere in the project" which had also accounted for his departure. Nupedia made little progress without his leadership and shut down the following year, but Wikipedia continued to grow and gain momentum. In December 2004 Sanger wrote a critical article for the website Kuro5hin. [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25] While claiming "to appreciate the merits of Wikipedia fully" and to know and support "the mission and broad policy outlines of Wikipedia very well," Sanger maintained that there are serious problems with the project. There was, he wrote, a lack of public perception of credibility, and the project put "difficult people, trolls, and their enablers" into too much prominence; these problems, he maintained, were a feature of the project's "anti-elitism, or lack of respect for expertise." The article was the subject of much controversy in the blogosphere and led to some reaction in the news media as well. ==After Wikipedia== Meanwhile, Sanger has rejoined the academic world and is currently a lecturer at Ohio State University, where he teaches philosophy courses. His professional interest is epistemology with concentrations in 17th-century philosophy and ethics. In his spare time, he plays and teaches music of Ireland on the fiddle in Columbus, Ohio and Dayton, Ohio, Ohio. Sanger was the founder and executive editor of "Sanger's Review of Y2K News Reports" (formerly at sangersreview.com [http://web.archive.org/web/20001025181634/http%3A//www.sangersreview.com/]), a resource for Y2K watchers, and also manages a site about the Donegal fiddle tradition. ==External links== *[http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/ Academic home page of Larry Sanger] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger Wikipedia user page of Larry Sanger] *[http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm Personal Statement about Wikipedia's Reliability] (December 2004) *m:User:Larry Sanger—On m:Main Page. ("Possibly outdated", he says.) *[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6464/hmpg.html Donegal Fiddle Pages]. *[http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/larrysanger/diss/index.html ''Epistemic Circularity: An Essay on the Problem of Meta-Justification''] *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Larry%27s_Text Introductory philosophy lectures] from Sanger's 1998 course at Ohio State University (many of these have been greatly edited from Sanger's originals—"as they should be", he says.) * [http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/issue/forward30105.asp?trk=nl Larry Sanger’s Knowledge Free-for-All]—Technology review article * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/25/103136/121 Britannica or Nupedia? The Future of Free Encyclopedias] Kuro5hin (July 25, 2001 op-ed article) * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/24/43858/2479 Wikipedia is wide open. Why is it growing so fast? Why isn't it full of nonsense?] Kuro5hin (September 24, 2001 op-ed article) *[http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 Why Wikipedia Must Jettison Its Anti-Elitism] Kuro5hin (December 31, 2004 op-ed article) *[http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir] and [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&tid=95 Part II] Slashdot (April 18-19, 2005) 1968 births Entrepreneurs Wikipedia history
Larry Sanger
==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? User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning :Yeah, it's on VfD, so far with a consensus to keep. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 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. --User: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. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning Date of birth? - User:Calmypal 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. User:63.230.158.214 :The most libelous change was something other than that. --User: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? User: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. User:63.230.158.214 Agreed--User:Sending out an SOS 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". User: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 Wikipedia: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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) ::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#I_wa%20s_.2Athis_close.2A_to_editing_myself link] ::--User: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. --User: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. User:Hedley 15:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :Read the second sentence of the introduction. NPOV satisfied. User:Adraeus 19:23, May 21, 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 [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss 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
Larry Sanger
Dear Wikipedians, I'm no longer associated with Wikipedia, which I co-founded. You can read my own account of my involvement with Wikipedia and Nupedia, "The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir," here: * [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss Part I] * [http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205&from=rss Part II] Links to some of my other writings about the project can be found at Larry Sanger. I can be reached at blarneypilgrim (a t) yahoo (d o t) com. --Larry Sanger, April 21, 2005 P.S. Here's what I posted when I left in 2002. Still good advice: All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you ''continue'' * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular, * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an ''encyclopedia,'' not on Usenet-style debate, * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced, * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project, * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will, * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. user:Larry Sanger/Archive
Larry Sanger
''Contents of old User page:'' My name is Larry Sanger and I was (with User:Jimbo Wales) instigator of Wikipedia, and the first (and so far only) editor-in-chief of Nupedia. I'm responsible for the original concept and the name "Wikipedia" and a lot of the original formulations of Wikipedia's most basic policy. Since funding for my salary ran out, leading to my departure in March 2002, I can take no credit and no blame for changes that have occurred since then. Ph.D. 2000, M.A. 1995, Philosophy, Ohio State University. B.A. 1991 Philosophy, Reed College. Home town is Anchorage, Alaska. Please have a look at (and spread around links to) this [http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/sanger3/wikipedia_statement.htm Personal Statement about Wikipedia's Reliability]. I can be reached at blarneypilgrim (a t) yahoo (d o t) com. All the best to Wikipedia and Wikipedians. May you ''continue'' * to be open and warmly welcoming, not insular, * to be focused singlemindedly on writing an ''encyclopedia,'' not on Usenet-style debate, * to recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced, * to work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project, * to treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will, * to attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well, and * to show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. I set up an [http://www.seeatown.com/search/ encyclopedia meta-search engine] (dead link ?). I hope you'll find it useful when researching Wikipedia articles. If you are spending too much time on Wikipedia, you could always use my [http://www.seeatown.com/halog/ Human Activity Logger] (dead link ?)to help you toward more self-discipline! ;-) Historical note: :Until December 2001, I was a full-time paid employee of Bomis, spending most of my work time (especially in the latter part of 2001) on Wikipedia. As of February 1, 2002, I was no longer paid at all; I made [http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=Announcement_about_my_involvement_in_Wikipedia_and_Nupedia--Larry_Sanger an announcement] explaining that I'd continue on as a part-time volunteer. On March 1, 2002, I resigned responsibility for leading Wikipedia and as editor-in-chief of Nupedia; my reasons are given in my [http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=My+resignation--Larry+Sanger letter of resignation to the community]. To reiterate, primarily I needed this extra time to find a job, and I felt that I could not work effectively as a leader when I am working only as a part-time volunteer. I participated in mailing list discussions and on the wiki to a small extent in the fall of 2002, but since December 2002 have drifted away. ---- Text from the old talk:Larry_Sanger page: Larry - I think there is a partial consensus (oxymoron?) that when disputes arise you are the nearest thing to an arbitrator there is. I don't know if we have (or need) a formal system of arbitration. ---- I don't see a ''very'' large consensus yet, and I don't see a need to make it official in any case. --LMS ---- I am not opposed to establishing a voluntary system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia, but there is a very real danger that establishing any formal system of arbitration/mediation will lay the groundwork for establishing a hierarchical power structure here. At the same time, the best argument for establishing a formal policy regarding arbitration/mediation is to make certain that procedural safeguards are put into place to prevent anyone from establishing a hierarchical power structure. Beyond the naked fact that Bomis hosts Wikipedia and that certain people who have made it past a probationary period are allowed to request Wikipedia administrator privileges from Bomis, there seems to be very little formal structure here. People make changes to articles as they see fit, and when a conflict arises, people are forced to work it out amongst themselves. I am reminded of how ODP first established "voluntary editor mediation" to resolve disputes between editors. Very quickly, this voluntary mediation process evolved into a ''de facto'' process for enforcement of the ODP Guidelines by ODP's meta editors. Meanwhile, the ODP Guidelines themselves went from being a recapitulation of the consensus of the volunteer editors to a strict code of conduct which was determined by ODP staff, and ODP devolved into a Lord of the Flies subculture. The question remains as to whether it is necessary to establish a formal system of arbitration/mediation at Wikipedia. I think it is, but not to resolve disputes. Rather, it should be established with appropriate procedural safeguards to protect the rights of individuals to wikipedia:Ignore all rules.--user:netesq ---------------------------- If you want a list of "24"'s contributions, you might do worse than take a look at User:24.150.61.63. -- Anon. Oh boy--time to get out the shovels. --User:Larry Sanger ---- Hello Mr. Sanger. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and have only now put together the history behind the project. I'm saddened by the way you were compelled to resign. Really it's just one of thousands of saddening stories accompanying the bursting of the Internet bubble, but it's just a shame that excellent work like this really can't find decent remuneration and I guess it won't change soon. I'd like to personally thank you, though, for your crucial role in creating Wikipedia and sustaining it in its infancy. It's a real achievement that can never be deleted from your past... I have a vague hope that the project will be transferred from Bomis (which, judging from its rather laughable website is not long for this world) to a company that can support it while understanding there's no chance of its making money for years. I think such a company would be very keen to try to get you back. Anyway, I was hoping that if you have the time and inclination you might go to talk:Race and give your input on a dispute I'm having with another writer. It started out being slightly ad-hominem but we've got that under control now. I think the balance I'm trying to bring to the article is important and hope you'll agree and maybe put in a few words to that effect. The other guy has threatened to blow away some very carefully crafted stuff I added and I hope a word from you will give him pause. I know it's not your job anymore and I ask mostly because I think you'll find it interesting. Thanks -- User:JDG 17:35 Oct 17, 2002 (UTC) ---- Thanks for your kind words. I can tell you that Bomis (Jimbo Wales) would never, as long as they can afford it, want to give up sponsoring Wikipedia. Whatever you might think of Bomis.com, they put well over a hundred thousand dollars (various salaries, mainly) into the project of building a free encyclopedia, and lack of funds for my salary notwithstanding, continue to support it very well. It's a feather in Jimbo's cap and by golly, he can and ''ought'' to wear it proudly. I would not want to come back to lead Wikipedia. It is unleadable. Certain characters, who would be delighted if I named them by name so I won't, made my job quite unpleasant due to their constant attacks on my (very modest) attempts to exert some authority or influence (and thus do my job). I ''would'' like to come back and lead a different ''Nu''pedia, though. It was rather sad that it worked out precisely as it did, but here's the story--in January 2001, I started Wikipedia when Nupedia had just gone live with its new system. Even by then I knew that Nupedia's editorial mechanism had become too cumbersome, and indeed Wikipedia was one of the ideas to supplement it. Over the next months, through the spring and summer of 2001, I started spending more and more time on Wikipedia, at first just because it really needed the guidance, and later because Jimmy specifically asked me to spend as much time on Wikipedia as possible, because it seemed to be the project that really had a going chance of succeeding. In the fall and early winter of 2001 on Nupedia-L and Advisory-L (Nupedia's advisory board mailing list) we had a discussion and vote on a new editorial system for Nupedia. By then my time allotted to Nupedia was practically zilch; so, before January 2002, when I was on half pay and half time, and February 2002 when money ran out entirely, I didn't have enough time to get Nupedia going again under the new plan. I have run the idea by Jimmy that I simply completely take over the Nupedia project (I would actually buy the thing from him) but he doesn't like the idea. He has assured me that he will get it running again, soon, but I'm not holding my breath. Don't get me wrong--I think Jimbo's heart is in the right place, he just doesn't have enough time to manage the projects he's started. It's a good thing that Wikipedia is more or less self-managing. I'm sorry, but I'd rather not step into the race debate... --User:Larry Sanger :I'd agree that Wikipedia is unleadable under current rules. I don't think any community can survive when there's no mechanism to shut down those who disrupt it at the foundations. Pure unpoliced egalitarianism runs up against one enduring fact of human nature: there will always be those who dedicate themselves to undermining the careful labor and cooperative spirit of others. It's just in their bones. If the finance situation were to turn around somehow and you could come back, there would need to be some new and startling by-laws. Heading the list would be a provision allowing you to propose a ban of anyone (perhaps for something like 2 months the first time, permanently the second time) who you feel is sytematically hindering your work. This proposal would be put to a vote by Wikipedians in which your vote alone counts for 10% of the vote total (if 300 people voted, your vote would be 30 votes)... It's sad there are people like Cunctator who are sly enough not to commit outright vandalism but who can make the leader's life miserable. In the Old West they had a phrase: "That man needs killin'", applied to people who gummed up the whole works by setting people and families against each other. Usually the offender was run out on a rail rather than actually killed. Online collaboration is settling a frontier and no frontier was ever settled without a supply of tar and feathers.-- User:JDG I think the community--and this includes me, by the way--has made it clear enough that money for Wikipedia would not go first and foremost to the salary of anything like an editor. You might not know this, but I am as responsible as anyone for the current extremely liberal banning policy. While I was managing Wikipedia, while I did pretty much immediately ban anyone who was obviously just a vandal (often, though, I'd wait for at least two infractions), and while I often ''threatened'' miscreants with banning and told certain individuals privately that they should just leave (e.g., that was the case with Helga, many months before things came to a head for her), in fact the first person who was actually ''banned'' from the project was "24," by Jimbo. Generally, I support the current policy of having public discussion of outright bans (not just recommendations and threats) and then doing it only after really serious consideration--and only in the most egregious cases. Your proposal, to give me the power to ban people who are thorns in my side, would receive virtually no support from anyone now in the project. I would oppose it myself, or rather, if given such a power and I had my old job back, I wouldn't use it. That just isn't the way forward. Please have a look at the Wikipedia-L archives from last August or September, in which I brought up the issue of mediocre quality and how to deal with it. You'll find that I have a different sort of solution: we need to revive a different Nupedia. Wikipedians, in their hubris, think they have all the answers to making a great encyclopedia. In fact, they really ''need'' a Nupedia. --User:Larry Sanger :I take your points, but it was you who said Wikipedia is "unleadable". Maybe you meant it can grow into a solid resource without any leadership, but I don't know about that. Anyway, I realize I'm asking you to restate stuff you're probably tired of stating. It's just that I'm new to Wikipedia and in the first blush of fascination with the idea. At least you're still around in some form -- User:JDG Well, what you're saying makes total sense, from a certain point of view, and I didn't mean to say it didn't. Some of the stuff I said above in fact I said for the first time, actually, and you're the first person in a long time to suggest that we need more centralized control. Wikipedia does have the leadership of a shifting group of people who happen to be most active and well-respected in the project. They're not elected, though. They just take responsibility and work a lot. I do have some apprehension that, if we keep losing many of our best people, the overall quality of the project will decline. For one thing, I think people don't realize how important experts and academics are ''and have been'' for Wikipedia. Without them, I still maintain (as I maintained on Wikipedia-L), Wikipedia will probably never rise above a certain level of mediocrity, just as Everything2 never will. The question is whether ''some'' manner of leadership--whether from within Wikipedia or from some project independent of Wikipedia--is required to attract and retain such people. I suspect the answer is yes, so on that point I actually agree with you. --User:Larry Sanger ---- As resident philosopher, can you look at my description of the use of counterxamples in philosophy on Counterexample and make sure that it's reasonable? Thanks! — User:Toby Bartels 12:19 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC) It's reasonable! --User:Larry Sanger ---- Would you have a moment to check what is said about Analogy of being at the entry on Apophatic theology? I'm not sure that I've got it right. — User:Mkmcconn I really don't know anything about that--sorry. --User:Larry Sanger : Thank you anyway. I hope that doesn't mean that I've distorted beyond recognition, a topic you are in fact familiar with! — User:Mkmcconn 23:39 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC) ---- Larry, I've been reading about the "Problem of Induction" lately, and I'm now left with the impression that philosophers have put a lot more effort into figuring out the circumstances under which inductive reasoning is justified than those under which deductive reasoning is. In particular, while it seems very popular to be skeptical of the soundness of induction, deduction seems, for the most part, unquestionably acceptable in almost every case. (Provided fallacies are avoided, of course.) I'm wondering if, to help even the score, you could suggest any philosophers who either try to problematize deductive reasoning, or others who make a serious attempt to justify it. Surely this must keep ''someone'' up late at night. The most interesting things I've found along these lines are: # Lewis Carroll's "What the Tortoise Said to Achilles" (in Godel, Escher, Bach) # Hofstadter's justification of the rules of first order logic (also somewhere in Godel, Escher, Bach). It's something along the lines of, "Don't these rules sound like what a sane person must believe? If you are sane, and you intuitively believe them, do you really need to question them?" Obviously I could find someone willing to argue about deduction if I go far enough afield, say, into postmodern literary theory. But that stuff doesn't strike me as terribly serious or compelling. --User:Ryguasu 04:33 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC) One of the best things on that question is my dissertation. ;-) Seriously, what my dissertation was about was the problem that the justification of induction and of deduction have in common. The leading view on the question you mention is that there's nothing wrong with the circularity involved in deductive justifications of deduction. The modern locus classicus of this view is Nelson Goodman's Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Also, Susan Haack wrote an article called "The Justification of Deduction" in ''Mind.'' For the underlying issues, you could always [http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/larrysanger/diss/contents.html go here] and use your browser's search function to find "deduction" on the Chapter 3 page. --User:Larry Sanger ---- Larry, Thanks for the philosophy references. I've copied them to my user page now, in case you want to delete the above. On another note, you were right about the Lakoff page being a bunch of crap. I'm starting to fix it up. --User:Ryguasu 23:23 Nov 22, 2002 (UTC) In curious as to whether or not you had been following the Irish potato famine article and its related talk, and the issues of domineering bias permeating it... I feel Ive been compromising too much on the issue of British imperialism, and have some inkling that this has being done with the threat of my removal, for making my voice known. -User:Stevertigo ---- Larry, what was that page I just edited that I ''thought'' was ''this'' page? Anyway, to answer your question that by now you've probably forgotten asking: No, "Anglican Church" is not the same as "Church of England". All churches belonging to the Anglican Communion, and some that do not belong are Anglican churches. That includes the Episcopal Church in the USA, which is obviously not part of the Church of England. User:Michael Hardy 20:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC) ---- Hey Larry, if from time to time people have edited the article on identity and change, is it still the same article? (Do you still read this page? If not, then ignore this posting.) User:Michael Hardy 21:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Regarding the article on Noumenon: I've barely read Immanuel Kant, so maybe its my fault, but can someone please explain to me what the text in the article means when it says Max Born solves the enigma of Kant's ''Ding an Sich'' with the statement ''One person cannot convey the concept of the color red, but two people can agree (on the color).'' Is this really what Kant meant by Noumenon? It doesn't seem right to me. Its also strange to say that he "solved" the enigma--I did read Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and I know that both Hegel and Gottlieb Fichte, as well as other German Idealists, made arguments refuting the notion of the thing-in-itself. Hegel says there is no thing-in-itself that is beyond understanding. Does this article need to be changed and corrected? User:Brianshapiro ---- on the talk page for the United Kingdom you say that the UK includes Great Britain, Northern Ireland ''and'' the channel islands and the isle of man. Just wanted to point out that this is very wrong, the UK is in fact just great britain plus northern ireland, the channel islands and Man are crown dependencies. User:Grunners 03:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (''CC-by-sa'') v1.0 and v2.0 Creative Commons Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The ''CC-by-sa'' license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at ''minimum'' those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
L
LA | LB | LC | LD | LE | LF | LG | LH | LI | LJ | LK | LM | LN | LO | LP | LR | LS | LT | LU | LW | LX | LY | LZ |Words begining with Larry_Sanger:
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger
Larry_Sanger/And_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/And_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Archive
Larry_Sanger/Final_comments_archive,_maybe
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text
Larry_Sanger/Larry's_Text/Anarchism_and_natural_law_theory
Larry_Sanger/Like_this
Larry_Sanger/More_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Obviously_bad_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Larry_Sanger/old
Larry_Sanger/old-LarrysText
Larry_Sanger/Old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Review_requests
Larry_Sanger/Still_more_old_comments
Larry_Sanger/Traditionally_respectable_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God
Larry_Sanger/Will_these_comments_ever_stop
Larry_Sanger/Yet_more_old_comments
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
