different people have made different claims at various times, and
published sources exist. just cite them all.
On 8/2/07, InkSplotch <inkblot14(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Good evening, folks.
I need some help in sorting out an issue. It has to do with a sticky
subject that's been discuss here in the past: the founding of Wikipedia. I
feel like I ought to open with a bit of Marc Antony, though...I'm not here
to argue the issue of how many founders Wikipedia has. As I say, it's been
roundly discuss here in the past. Many articles have been written about
it. And it's disputed by about the only two primary sources available:
Wales and Sanger.
Why I am bringing it up has to do with NPOV. My view is: it is disputed,
the secondary sources we have (external articles) mostly relate to the
dispute itself, and I'm not sure it's something one can reliably establish
outside Wikipedia itself, and in this matter I don't think we can count
Wikipedians as reliable sources. I've been discussing it over on
[[Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation]] tonight, and I feel like I'm going around in
circles. It's the second time I've had the discussion there, and I've seen
similar discussions on articles for Wales, Sanger, Wikipedia, and just about
anything related. Terms like "founder" or "co-founder" have to be
to absurd degrees in some cases. And every few weeks or months, someone
comes along and decides to change things up.
I think it's hurting our neutrality. As undisputed as "co-founder"
apparently was for awhile, now it seems to have quite a few editors
polarized and I just don't think we can tuck the term into articles with
just a source or two. Personally, I feel needing any sources for the term
'founder' renders it POV. I don't have an easy solution, that's why
here. I felt this would be a good place to discuss it neutrally, and I've
considered an RFC (but to be honest, I'm not sure how I'd set one up).
I think some articles, like [[Wikimedia Foundation]] can stand alone without
touching the issue, and on others we can probably still find suitable
alternatives. I think the dispute itself could be explained neutrally on
the [[Wikipedia]] article...but that, itself, might be POV. Is it something
we can distance ourselves from and find a neutral stance, or am I out in
left-field even bringing it up again.
Please go easy on me.
"Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: