Talk:Larry Sanger: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:29, 18 May 2010 editQuackGuru (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Failed verification ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:11, 5 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,899 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 6) (bot
(653 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{stt}}
	{{talk header}}		{{talk header}}
	{{~~notice\|{{find}}~~}}		{{not a forum}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=GAN		\|action1=GAN
	\|action1date=08:46, 19 December 2007		\|action1date=08:46, 19 December 2007
			\|action1link=Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2#Failing as a good article
	\|action1result=not listed		\|action1result=not listed
	\|action1oldid=178913144		\|action1oldid=178913144
Line 9:		Line 11:
	\|action2=GAN		\|action2=GAN
	\|action2date=18:48, 2 March 2008		\|action2date=18:48, 2 March 2008
			\|action2link=Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 2#GA review
	\|action2result=listed		\|action2result=listed
	\|action2oldid=195369615		\|action2oldid=195369615

			\|action3=AFD
	\|currentstatus=GA
			\|action3date=12:26, 11 May 2010
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Larry Sanger
			\|action3result=speedy keep
			\|action3oldid=361459774

			\|action4=GAR
			\|action4date=00:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Talk:Larry Sanger/GA1
			\|action4result=delisted
			\|action4oldid=578002379

			\|currentstatus=DGA
	\|topic=phil		\|topic=phil
			\|action5=PR
			\|action5date=11:43:44 24 November 2019 (UTC)
			\|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Larry Sanger/archive1
			\|action5result=reviewed
			\|action5oldid=937630113
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|vital=yes\|listas=Sanger, Larry\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Biography}}
	{{WPBiography\|living=yes\|class =GA\|priority=Mid\|listas=Sanger, Larry
			{{WikiProject Alaska\|importance=low}}
			{{WikiProject Conservatism\|importance=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Philosophy\|importance=mid\|contemporary=yes\|epistemology=yes\|philosopher=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages\|importance=top}}
	}}		}}
			{{Notable Wikipedian\|Larry Sanger\|editedhere=no}}
	{{philosophy\|philosopher=yes\|epistemology=yes\|contemporary=yes\|importance=mid\|class=GA}}
			{{Daily pageviews}}
	{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages\|class=GA\|importance=High}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo = old(365d)
			\| archive = Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter = 6
			\| maxarchivesize = 125K
			\| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 5
	}}		}}
	{{Notable Wikipedian\|Larry Sanger\|Sanger, Larry\|editedhere=yes}}
	{{calmtalk}}
	{{archivebox\|auto=long}}
	{{oldafdfull \| date = 11 May 2010 \| result = speedy keep \| page = Larry Sanger }}

			== Recent Sanger criticism of Misplaced Pages ==

			{{hat\|Unproductive thread}}
			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??--] (]) 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. ] (]) 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, ]. ] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
			:::: {{tq\|fox news is not a reliable source}} "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG," per perennial sources. ] (]) 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? ]<sup>]</sup> 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
			:::: I believe Sanger is pro-expert, as long as that expert is himself. ] (]) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
			::::Looks like a section was added https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

			:::::Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 10:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::Removed. There's clearly no such consensus as you claim, and, per ]: {{tq\|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content}}. ]]] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::::To be clear I support linking reliable sources which cover the blog post (obviously where ] 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. ] (]) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::::Of course, I think we're all in agreement regarding that. ] (]) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

			:::::::::::I think you clearly don't know how to count. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::::::And you don't know how to respond to the right person. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::::::You're welcome to make the improvements you see fit. ] (]) 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, Misplaced Pages isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. <b style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8">]]]</b> 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
	__TOC__

			: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 ]-collection. ] (]) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
	== Sanger's Message to the FBI ==

			Larry Sanger's criticisms of Misplaced Pages 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 ]. ] (]) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
	] should be covered here. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">] <small><sub><font color="maroon">]</font></sub><sup><font color="green">]</font></sup></small></u> 01:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:Is that a reliable source? ] (]) 01:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	::There's an extensive -- ] (]) 02:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Does anyone have a sense of how reliable and widely read the register is? (i read it occasionally, but being a goober who spends too much time reading wikipedia, etc im too close to it). i think this letter deserves at least a brief mention, but to what degree? i would prefer to wait until the letter is picked up for reporting by agencies outside this somewhat narrow world of tech/web talk, before expanding any mention significantly. NPOV and undue weight are big concerns here. i know its discussed at slashdot, and was in googles news aggregate, but i dont think thats enough at all right now.] (]) 04:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
	:::Well, it has just hit the front page of the BBC News site. (see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm) As that is very much mainstream news, I suggest we need to add a section regarding the issue.--] (]) 22:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
	::::Yes, now i totally support mentioning it here. i probably wont add the editions myself, and i will watch them to see if they are NPOV and of due weight, but please, anyone, go ahead.] (]) 01:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::The article is mostly about Wales not Sanger. Do you support mentioning it in the Jimmy Wales page. ] (]) 01:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
	:::::This information is about criticism and is in the criticism article. ] (]) 18:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

			Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?--] (]) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
	== Reference format ==

			: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). ] (]) 02:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
	This changed the reference format. This is an odd way to format refrences. Most articles on Misplaced Pages are not formatted this way. I prefer reference formatting in the body. ] (]) 19:04, 18 April 2010 (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''. 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 ]; it is not a true "point of view".<p> Editors must edit neutrally when they deal with ]ed content. Since Misplaced Pages 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."
			:: ] (]) (''''']''''') 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/ ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
			{{hab}}

			== Sanger Interviews on YouTube are considered unreliable sources? ==
	:See ]. Most articles aren't formatted the new way because it was only introduced six months ago, but it's the Next Big Thing and will probably be made the only way at some point. (Personally, I loathe LDR and think it's a pointless overcomplication, but that's just me.) – <font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

			I added this to the article:
	::I don't see where it says references must be formatted this more difficult way. ] (]) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
			He further adds that since Misplaced Pages encourages the use of ] instead of ], Misplaced Pages is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the ] at all. You can’t cite ] 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 Misplaced Pages."<ref>{{cite podcast \|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU \|title=Misplaced Pages co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created \|website= youtube.com\|publisher=UnHerd\|host=Freddie Sayers \|date=July 14, 2021 \|time=16:28 \|access-date=May 25, 2022}}</ref> Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views.<ref>{{cite podcast \|url=https:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU\|title=Misplaced Pages co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created \|website= youtube.com\|publisher=UnHerd\|host=Freddie Sayers \|date=July 14, 2021 \|time=8:30 \|access-date=May 25, 2022}}</ref> He claimed that Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages in order to shore up their power. And they do that."<ref name=":3" />

			It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable.
	:::There's no "must", and I'll fight tooth-and-nail against anyone who tries to make them so (see ]—I think it's arguably the stupidest idea ever implemented on this site). ''But'' they are, sadly, a legitimate format, and ''if'' there's a consensus in favour of them on the article (note the "if") they probably ought to be changed. – <font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 19:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
			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. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)</span>
			:You gave no reason why an exception should be made. "It's an interview" is not a reason. --] (]) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
			::Sanger can't even be represented using his own words? Well done Misplaced Pages ... you are truly a modern marvel of mis/dis-information! ] (]) 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
			{{reflist-talk}}
			:::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 Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 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 , , , , , and .
	::::I am having problems with the new formatting. Trying to find the reference is difficult. Trying to find a specific reference by clicking on the reference section is very difficult. If a reference needs to be updated it will be very difficult to make minor changes to the reference becuase you will have to locate it first. I don't see consensus for this article for the changes. ] (]) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
			: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?
			:] (]) 15:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
			::See ]. That Misplaced Pages is 'biased' is not the problem you seem to think it is. ] (]) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
			::Yes, what is missing is a better solution. If you have one, go to ]. Pro tip: Sanger's solution is not better, all his encyclopedias failed. --] (]) 16:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

			== Experts ==
	== "Deconstructing Misplaced Pages" - profile ==
			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? --] (]) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
	Good potential source - - Feature Story Reed magazine June 2010 "Larry Sanger ’91 launched a revolution. Why does he want to start over?" -- ] (]) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

			:Hmmm ... if articles were approved by experts then Misplaced Pages might qualify as a reliable source! ] (]) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
	:For several months, Seigenthaler’s biographical entry on Misplaced Pages had made the outrageous claim that he was complicit in the assassination of both John F. and Robert F. Kennedy, a particularly spiteful defamation because he had in fact been one of Robert Kennedy’s pallbearers. Because Misplaced Pages contributors are anonymous, Seigenthaler had no way of tracing the author—but he was able to track down the original architects of the system, which is why he was calling Sanger.
	:The criticism stung, but Sanger hoped that the incident would push Misplaced Pages to confront its problems—problems he had been warning about for years. Instead, the Misplaced Pages community responded with a collective shrug. “What no one would admit was that the episode suggested something wrong with the basic model that Misplaced Pages operates under,” he says.
	:Sanger had always been proud of his creation. Now, however, he was beginning to fear that it suffered from a fundamental flaw.
	:Here are the main points from the source. ] (]) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

			::You want articles approved by experts? Cos when you have articles approved by experts... ]<sup>]</sup> 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
	==Speedy keep==
			: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{{tm}} on the subject, Dinesh D'Souza and Mike Lindell. ] (]) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
	This was correct, Sanger should probably be blocked if he hasn't already been so if its true re his legal threats but that is no reason to delete the article. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
			:: Sanger would consider their POV the right one. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

	== ~~Failed~~ ~~verification~~ ==		== 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.
	I that failed V. ] (]) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

			More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a ] chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.
	: Could you point out which words of that fairly short sentence you thought were unsupported by the multiple sources offered? The content is certainly worth inclusion. ] (]) 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

	~~::What~~ I ~~removed~~ ~~was~~ ~~unsourced.~~ ~~You~~ ~~could~~ ~~not~~ ~~provide~~ ~~verification~~. ] (]) 04:29, 18 ~~May~~ ~~2010~~ (UTC)		Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
			:I think you meant to link to ]. ] (]) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

			== "The Left has taken over Misplaced Pages and stripped it of neutrality"? ==
	==Child porn report section==
	] (] removed which had four references and has received massive publicity. This was just a two sentence item buried in the article and hardly undue weight (and I actually thought it was written in a sympathetic tone telling his side and none of the fall out). I'm not sure why it would draw the ire of Quack or even Sanger. ] (]) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

			What left? Langley's left? A philosopher who is ignorant of the most basic concepts of political philosophy. ] (]) 20:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	: Restored that sentence. The sentence is a neutral report of a well-sourced and notable incident; I certainly think think content meets ] standards. And the notion that a single sentence on an incident that's drawn so much attention is ] borders on the absurd. ] (]) 21:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:11, 5 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Sanger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk.

Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 11, 2010	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
October 22, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
November 24, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Epistemology / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Epistemology
	Contemporary philosophy

Misplaced Pages Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-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) This user has not edited the article.

Recent Sanger criticism of Misplaced Pages

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. Misplaced Pages 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? Bastun 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://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ·addshore· 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. Bastun 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. Bastun 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. Bastun 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, Misplaced Pages isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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? Bastun 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://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ·addshore· 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. Bastun 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. Bastun 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. Bastun 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, Misplaced Pages isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages." Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages ... 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

Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). "Misplaced Pages co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 16:28. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). . youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 8:30. Retrieved May 25, 2022. {{cite podcast}}: Check |url= value (help)
Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

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 Misplaced Pages 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 , , , , , and .

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Categories: