On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/08/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)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
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
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,
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.
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"