In the long run--ten and thirty years from now--the merit of Sanger's claim
to coufoundership of Wikipedia is likely to be measured by the success of
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
Ken Arromdee wrote:
>> He obviously is claiming that things
which we say are true, aren't.
>> the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of
>> by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent
opinion and should not be taken as such
(particularly by reporters)?
Yes it actually was. The context in which the *interpretations*
of the historical events by Jimbo which got up Mr. Sanger's nose
were expressed, was clearly one in which Jimbo was speaking in
a personal faculty, and not as a representative of the foundation,
and in my view fell squarely on freedom of opinion.
There are issues of fact which support a different interpretation
than the one Jimbo appears to uphold, but in the final analysis
it all hinges on what ones definition of the term "co-founder" is,
and is it something formal that is inalienable; call somebody a
co-founder once and you can't correct the record later. A favorable
gloss on the interpretation Jimbo holds is that the early mentions
of Mr. Sanger as a co-founder were symbolic and as a courtesy and
as such not to be taken as a comment on his role in terms of
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: