Talk:Larry Sanger

Recent Sanger criticism of Wikipedia

Unproductive thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??--1.152.111.77 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) I see no reason to add it unless its covered by reliable sources. We shouldn’t treat Sanger differently from any other semi-reliable blogger just because he is connected to the project. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC) This is mentioned based on a single Fox News source. A sentence or two seems fine. Anything more than that would need better, secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC) With due respect, i don't think it should be mentioned at all. To rephrase my original point, fox news is not a reliable source, and Larry Sanger is not as significant to the wikipedia project as they want people to think. Which means his comments are nothing more than yet another instance of Fox News pushing post-truth alternative facts, and they want to use Sanger's past connection to wikipedia to legitimize their conspiracy theories about left wing bias. Wikipedia should not contribute to legitimizing them further. If other sources find it his claims notable enough to debunk, or expose whatever ulterior motives he may have had for echoing pro trump talking points, then sure. Let it be covered. Otherwise, it's just not relevant. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC) fox news is not a reliable source "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG," per perennial sources. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Not relevant for inclusion here. News at 10: "Sanger, self-proclaimed libertarian, rails against perceived liberalism. (Also requests more funding)." Remind me, is his latest project in favour of experts, or opposed to them? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC) I believe Sanger is pro-expert, as long as that expert is himself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Looks like a section was added https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ·addshore· talk to me! 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Reinstated, you don't have any consensus to remove (in fact it's pretty clearly in favor of inclusion here), maybe start an RfC if you feel that strongly against it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Removed. There's clearly no such consensus as you claim, and, per policy: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. ——Serial # 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Indeed. When I removed this, there was one person asking should it be included, one person saying yes, and three saying no. Not seeing how you could have arrived at the conclusion that there was clear consensus for inclusion, by the evening of 29 May, MPUWT. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I'm coming to the conclusion there is objectively more support here to include than against, in which case the side against is only you and an IP. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC) To be clear I support linking reliable sources which cover the blog post (obviously where WP:DUE etc etc etc), the topic as presented is whether or not to include the link to Sanger’s subpar blog which I strongly object to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Of course, I think we're all in agreement regarding that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) I think you clearly don't know how to count. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC) And you don't know how to respond to the right person. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC) We aren’t *all* in agreement but I think there is a general consensus. If we want to talk about changes to the text I would remove all the direct quotes and tighten up our summary a little bit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC) You're welcome to make the improvements you see fit. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC) I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47คุก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC) I should've been more clear. I don't think it adds anything important to the article, and I don't think it should be include... but I don't think a single sentence is worth removing, either. It absolutely should not be expanded without much better sources, and it would benefit the article for this sentence to be trimmed to avoid becoming a WP:FART-collection. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC) Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?--Skylax30 (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC) Actually, he is right that the "neutral" in NPOV is a perennial source of confusion. But his criticism would be totally obliterated by renaming NPOV to PPOV (i.e. proportional point of view). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Hi Tudor. I partially agree, but only partially. I suspect your point mostly applies to the Due weight part of NPOV, while "neutral" primarily applies to editorial behavior, as explained in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content: "NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions; we write about facts and opinions neutrally. The "Neutral" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view". Editors must edit neutrally when they deal with biased content. Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not." Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Why not include it and allow everyone to use their own judgment? https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/ 2600:1700:1580:4290:F0D4:53E:2FD1:FB1D (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC) We already have the internet for that. Here we use reliable sources (RS), and Sanger is a fringe and pitiful character who is far from a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sanger Interviews on YouTube are considered unreliable sources?

I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia." Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views. He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."

It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

You gave no reason why an exception should be made. "It's an interview" is not a reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Sanger can't even be represented using his own words? Well done Wikipedia ... you are truly a modern marvel of mis/dis-information! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

We just keep unreliable sources out. Sanger can talk and write all day long on all subjects he likes, but his ideas only become noteworthy for Wikipedia if reliable sources notice them. It's not that difficult to understand, except for people who think that the opinion of a Random Guy on the Street must be heard together with the experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

And who decides the list of "reliable sources" but a group of highly experienced WP editors and admins? Would you state that WP is "neutral" and "without bias"? Plenty of research shows that WP is very much left-leaning and biased, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].

If WPs main editors and admins are biased, then this curated list of allowed "experts" will be biased. That's it. Am I missing anything?

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

See WP:YESBIAS. That Wikipedia is 'biased' is not the problem you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, what is missing is a better solution. If you have one, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Pro tip: Sanger's solution is not better, all his encyclopedias failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Experts

I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."

But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm ... if articles were approved by experts then Wikipedia might qualify as a reliable source! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You want articles approved by experts? Cos this is what happens when you have articles approved by experts... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's being taken out of context. As the article mentions, Sanger created another wiki project called Citizendium, which had the goal of having all of its articles approved by experts. However, many of these "experts" turned out to be pseudoscience-pushing cranks with questionable credentials. I think we can safely assume that if he was still actively involved with the project, any articles on election fraud would have to be approved by the World's Leading Experts™ on the subject, Dinesh D'Souza and Mike Lindell. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sanger would consider their POV the right one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Personal Life and Religion

Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.

More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.

Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

An update may be needed depending on what the explicitly stated belief actually says. I don't see any conflict with being agnostic and studying the Bible or expressing an openness to religion. It doesn't say he's an atheist. --Onorem (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Telegram (software). Partofthemachine (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Left has taken over Wikipedia and stripped it of neutrality"?

What left? Langley's left? A philosopher who is ignorant of the most basic concepts of political philosophy. 201.195.126.136 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)