[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Larry Sanger]

Another set of replies.

I wrote:
> > ...  On the other hand, if you pretend that it isn't 
> > happening, or 
> > dismiss my concerns, you'll just be digging yourselves even deeper 
> > into the hole you're already in.  Remember: the world is watching.

Sam Korn replied:
> What hole are we in, pray?

The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty,
coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my
views have in the "court of public opinion" to confront the project's
leading light.  Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands.

> Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your 
> role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the 
> Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this.

That's only part of it, and not the biggest part.  My biggest complaint is
that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him.  I am
determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it.

> For my 
> part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care 
> little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and 
> for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the 
> Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.

Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman
does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to
distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say
that will convince you.

Bill Carter wrote:

> Dear Larry Sanger: Please keep Citizendium going and do not 
> step down in two years as, I believe, you have previously 
> stated. Eventually more writers are going to show up at 
> Citizendium if it proves to have a more collegial and 
> collaborative atmosphere. We are currently stuck with 
> Wikipedia, but you offer a great alternative.

Bill, I appreciate the compliment!  But it is my intention to
begin--soon--to seek a successor.  It is deeply important that the torch be
passed in truly open, democratic projects.  I have other projects in the
works to start, anyway.

Charles Matthews wrote:
> One thing about history and Wikipedia, is that we are supposed to let 
> historians write it. Really, if you are asking me personally 
> to choose 
> between your version of history, and what you say is Jimbo's, I would 
> prefer a third-party, dispassionate account.

I am not asking you to choose "versions of history," I am asking you to
acknowledge that Jimmy Wales has self-servingly denied, distorted, or
ignored provable facts that ought to be acknowledged on *anybody's* version
of history.

Tris Thomas wrote:
> ... but I really 
> don't see the need to continue this issue.  There is no 
> tiptoeing around 
> Jimmy Wales as can be seen by many people's views on here(I'm 
> sure he's 
> reading it) & in Wikipedia articles.  There is a general 
> consensus that 
> on this particular matter, Jimmy is unreliable & almost 
> everyone agrees, 
> so why the continuation?
> If there is anyone here who believes that Jimmy is right & is 
> the sole & 
> only founder, please make yourself known, otherwise can we 
> just end this 
> pointless, yes pointless, feud.

This is not a feud, Tris.  This is me publicly confronting a liar with
evidence.  A feud would be more of a matter of competing claims with no way
of sorting them out.  There *is* a way to sort the claims I dispute out: by
looking in the archives and interviewing people.

Moreover, and I'm not sure how many times I am going to have to say this, it
isn't just about the matter of being a "co-founder" and me getting credit.
If you read the letter, you'll see why I say so.  While I do of course want
proper credit for my achievements, what I want even more is to correct the
record in general, and to dissuade Jimmy Wales from being so fast and loose
with the truth, as I said.  I am now convinced this requires a public
confrontation, because the low-level and private remarks I have made in
response to him over the last five years or so obviously haven't worked.  It
will only stop when Jimmy Wales changes his tune, or he is so discredited in
public that no one listens to him on the subject any longer.

Sam Korn said:
> > Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia 
> > community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.

geni said:
> It has in the past caused problems with our [[Wikipedia]] 
> article and Jimbo's past attempts to distort the record did 
> cause unnecessary conflict within wikipedia.

True, but it's more than that, you know.  The problem isn't just
inconvenience to the community.  In an encyclopedia project, the inherent
value of the truth itself ought to be accorded a lot of weight.  In
addition, you have Wikipedia's reputation in the broader world to think
about.  The sort of person who is permitted to speak on its behalf, and who
still enjoys a lot of credence in claiming sole credit for starting it, says
a lot about the project itself, I think.

Sam Korn wrote:
> "Sanger and most media sources consider Wales and Sanger 
> co-founders.[cite][cite][cite] Wales disputes it, saying 
> that, although Sanger played a vital part in the formation of 
> Wikipedia and his role is regularly underestimated, Wales 
> alone should be considered the founder.</cite>"
> 
> Or something like that.

Well, I'm not going to try to tell you what the Wikipedia articles should
say, but obviously a lot more needs to be said about the situation.  Among
other things, frankly, I think Wikipedia's articles should state that I--and
a lot of other people--believe that Jimmy has been caught disseminating
quite a bit of self-serving disinformation.

Fayssal F. said:
> I may agree with that but I am still waiting for mainstream 
> media talking about it and Larry's claims in the open before 
> thinking about editing that page.

Fair enough.  You won't have to wait long.  But as you can probably guess,
from my point of view, that this is ultimately not just about what the
Wikipedia articles should say.  It is about what the broader public "knows,"
which is something over which Wikipedia has only slender control at best
(which is as it should be).

--Larry