On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
different people have made different claims at various times, and published sources exist. just cite them all.
Exactly. If something is disputed, say it's disputed and find sources to support that fact. Don't try and find a reliable source for something which isn't reliably known, since such a thing is impossible.
But in every related article? What does it have to do with the Wikimedia Foundation? Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of Wikipedia article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy Wales' article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay Controversy article.
It looks to me like some people are fighting a war on this, and that's just plain damaging. In my searching just now, I found an RFC for someone pushing this POV: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru And guess what? It's who I was trying to work with on Wikimedia Foundation last night. The same editor who, frankly, made me give up when he told me "co-founder is reliably sourced" and the term owner "is unverified." So apparently, Wales did not own Wikipedia when he set up Wikimedia to transfer ownership.
I think it is a legitimate topic to cover, as there are multiple sources discussing the controversy. I just think it ought to be in one place, Wikipedia or 'History of Wikipedia' and we ought to be able to find a neutral way to refer to Wales and Sanger outside of that article which doesn't establish a distinct POV on the matter.
InkSplotch