Talk:Larry Sanger

I'm gonna leave this here

Regarding the misleading Bloomsbury News reporter's statement, who misinterpreted me and even got the source wrong: https://x.com/lsanger/status/2059285496589652213 Larry Sanger (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The source seems to support that you support the doxxing of editors. It isn't confusing or difficult, as it says "admins and those with significant authority in the system should be as easily named and shamed as any ordinary journalist." In case you weren't sure, that would be doxxing .

I'd also be curious to know how you would propose to identify those with "significant authority"?? biggest Mop? - Walter Still not in the Epstein Files Ego 15:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I've removed the offending content. Given that the subject contests the source's interpretation of his words, and it's only a single source supporting this interpretation, I believe there's sufficient doubt regarding whether it meets the strict requirements of WP:BLP. Note that I found this through Sanger's comment at Special:Diff/1360654041 and I consider this to effectively be an edit request. If there are a handful of sources supporting this interpretation, my understanding is that the burden would shift to Sanger to have a correction published and/or his rebuttal could be added alongside the journalists' interpretation. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. But it'll be a bit irrelevant if sources start reporting on etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to step in to clarify a matter of editorial responsibility in BLP cases. It would NEVER be ok to say "well, several sources say it" in a case like there where the subject of an article quite clearly denies it. It is incumbent on us always to use good editorial judgment, not to blindly parrot sources that get things wrong. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

This seems ambiguous in the BLP policy, but you raise a good point. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Subject correcting misunderstanding of their own words for a more general consideration beyond this specific instance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If the subject denies it, you should still include the allegation. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This entry is probably going to get deleted like Nikolai Yezhov’s pic ~2026-38920-36 (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Citable answer to Sanger's accusation?

Per Sanger's "accusing Wikipedia administrators of not providing formal charges, due process, or neutral adjudication", has there been an answer to this covered by a reliable source that explains this is not how the Wikipedia works in any instance, and that effectively he was requesting special treatment here? If there's a sourced rebuttal we can fit in there, that would be more informative for the reader. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That admins have to be neutral is his fiction. Admins are not neutral, but biased for the WP:RULES. Same as a judge is not neutral, but biased for the law. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course I agree. I'm concerned here that readers of this article are only getting his take. If there has been any secondary coverage that counters his position, we could use that as a low-weight rebuttal. the Stefen 𝕋ower 05:26, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

for what this isn't worth, i haven't found anything explaining the specifics yet. most sources are still just reporting what happened, retelling larry's story, or being breitbart. if rs explaining how the systems behind the ban work pops up, i'll dump it somewhere as soon as i can consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:37, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Intellectual diversity

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intellectual diversity § Linking to this article in Larry Sanger page. George Ho (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia?

There are some useful sources, and thoughts, in this Signpost piece. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Slightly related previous thread at Talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_7#WP:LEAD_disagreement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Wikivoice on Larry Sanger page --Guy Macon (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In 1999, Jimmy Wales wanted to start a free, collaborative encyclopedia.

To my great surprise, Jimmy replied to my e-mail describing his idea of a free encyclopedia, and asking if I might be interested in leading the project. He was specifically interested in finding a philosopher to lead the project, he said. He made it a condition of my employment [at Nupedia] that I would finish my Ph.D. quickly (whereupon I would get a raise)--which I did, in June 2000. I am still grateful for the extra incentive. I thought he would be a great boss, and indeed he was.

To be clear, the idea of an open source, collaborative encyclopedia, open to contribution by ordinary people, was entirely Jimmy's, not mine, and the funding was entirely by Bomis. I was merely a grateful employee; I thought I was very lucky to have a job like that land in my lap. Of course, other people had had the idea; but it was Jimmy's fantastic foresight actually to invest in it. For this the world owes him a considerable debt. The actual development of this encyclopedia was the task he gave me to work on.

— Larry Sanger, Larry Sanger, The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir

Per Sanger's own explanation, I would say he wasn't a cofounder. At the very least, it is certainly a controversial claim that shouldn't be repeated in Wikivoice uncritically. My suggestion would be to change the wording in the lead to reflect Sanger's actual title during that period: chief organizer of Wikipedia. Nosferattus (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The counterargument -- and it is a good one -- is that multiple reliable sources have uncritically accepted Larry Sanger's later claim that he is a co-founder while I can't find any reliable sources that even mention Jimmy Wales' claim that he is not.

What we are supposed to do in this sort of situation is avoid WP:WIKIVOICE -- that is for undisputed facts -- and instead use language like "generally accepted as", "universally accepted as", "who most sources consider to be", or something similar. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Why are we re-accessing if he is cofounder now? Does this mean that Jimmy founded Wikipedia by himself? Guz13 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is re-assessing whether he is cofounder. The question is whether it is an established fact that should be expressed in Wikivoice, or a widely but not universally held opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

What makes Jimmy one of the founders and Larry not a founder? Guz13 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

What makes Sanger a founder? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

While I personally agree with Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia? and that calling him a cofounder in Wikivoice is an obvious NPOV violation, to go further and have Wikipedia not call him a founder I would need to see some reliable sources supporting that position. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, even though an employee, Sanger came up with the name Wikipedia, created many of the original rules and regs, and pioneered many of the sites customs and criticisms. Sanger has his personal memories of the time, and was present in circumstances that he participated in and either shaped or helped to shape. Why this question has been brought up at this time is interesting fallout from what some believe was an unfair indef considering the fast escalation of the suggested "punishment" for a long-time editor with a clean block log. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

We should correct WP:NPOV vioations whenever we find them, and using Wikvoice ("Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice") is a NPOV violation. It doesn't matter what discussion brought the NPOV violation to the editor's attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a perfect description of a "chief organizer", not a cofounder. Regardless, the point is, so long as the title is disputed we can't just assert it in Wikivoice. For example, this PC Gamer article quotes Jimmy Wales saying that "I actually think Larry Sanger doesn’t get enough credit for his early work in Wikipedia, even though I think co-founder’s not the right title for that." Nosferattus (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2026 (UTC)