He hasn't been complaining about the presentation of the issue in the encyclopedia, but about the stances and conduct of individuals (as he views it) outside the editorial realm.
The reason many here are dismissive is not that these claims are or aren't without merit, but that they are irrelevant to the aim or the project, which is not to resolve who gets how much glory or criticism, but to write neutral encyclopedic content pages in a collaborative manner and leave other issues outside the door - a goal which renders the entire issue largely pointless to many experienced editors, unless some actual mis-balancing of an actual encyclopedia article is in the frame.
FT2
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 6:24 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2009, James Farrar wrote:
- Is debate about Sanger's and Wales's respective cofounder/founder
claims
regarding Wikipedia a worthwhile endeavor?
Not here. It doesn't help us develop and improve the English Wikipedia.
I've found the "to improve Wikipedia" clause in various rules to be an odd loophole. Usually it gets abused in BLP and privacy discussions: "that helps the individual named in the BLP but doesn't improve the encyclopedia". The idea that we must improve the encyclopedia is *not* a blanket excuse to avoid our responsibilities to get things correct or not to cause harm.
In fact, this is almost the same as the BLP and privacy abuses. Sanger is a particular named individual that Wikipedia is making claims about. He says the claims are wrong. It's up to us to get them right, whether it "improves the encyclopedia" or not--and if getting them right doesn't improve the encyclopedia, what are we doing making *any* claims about *anyone's* founder status?
(Moreover, Sanger has pointed to particular things he claims aren't true, above and beyond the founder/cofounder issue.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l