Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 13 May 2009

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

	Larry Sanger has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 19, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 2, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Misplaced Pages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Misplaced Pages.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Larry Sanger (talk · contribs) / Sanger, Larry This user has contributed to the article.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Co-founder discussion rumbles on

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

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

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

Refs

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

• In response to Wales' view, Sanger posted on his personal webpage a collection of links which seemingly confirms his co-founder honorary appellation, including referencing earlier versions of Misplaced Pages pages, citing press releases from Misplaced Pages in the years of 2002 - 2004, and asserting that early media coverage stories described Wales and Sanger as the co-founders.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Website link style

http://larrysanger.org/

http://larrysanger.org/

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ref changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SmackBot

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

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

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

Early Life and education

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

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

The co-foundership of Misplaced Pages was not disputed until around 2005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Citizen Sanger" - Larry Sanger interview in _Hot Press_

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

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

Cofoundership

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

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

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Philosophy and religion good articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Misplaced Pages articles
• High-importance Misplaced Pages articles
• WikiProject Misplaced Pages articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors