I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic.
I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]].
On the issue of whether I am entitled to speak out here, I did want to make two points.
First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it "annoying." If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms.
Second, virtually all of the arguments of those claiming that I lack the right to air my concerns on this list work as arguments that I should not have been allowed to post in the first place. Surely the moderators were right to allow me to post, and I was grateful to them for letting me do so. Nevertheless, since first posting, all I have been doing is defending the relevance, or significance, of my open letter to Jimmy Wales, or my right to make it--not really discussing its content at all. That's a pretty sad state of affairs, I think. I actually think that a large majority of Wikipedians probably sympathize with my letter, but that they are intimidated by those on this list who have the ability to make up arguments justifying censorship of someone with a serious, well-justified complaint about one of the most important leaders of the project.
As to the attacks on Citizendium, I'm not going to bother replying. Those who are inclined to be sympathetic toward us will find out about us from more reliable sources, or from their own observation. Suffice it to say that the people who are lobbing the most vicious attacks either know nothing about the project, or are deeply philosophically opposed to it, and in either case, their opinion is not worth very much, as far as I'm concerned. As to those who might be inclined to sympathize with us, but who are intimidated into silence here on this list, and by mobs in general, let's just say that you're very welcome to join us.
I do want to say one last thing to the more reasonable people in the community, who I know have been following this, and who stick things out in the face of what looks like a brainless mob: while I long ago decided I couldn't join you, I do admire and sympathize with your situation. Wikipedia is great--it's hard to abandon. There are a lot of very smart and decent people on Wikipedia, and if I have harsh words about the Wikipedia community from time to time, I hope you'll understand I'm not talking about you.
--Larry (I'll be unsubscribing right after sending this)
P.S. Apropos of nothing but a throwaway remark by someone on the list: I have never, ever, not even once, used any account on Wikipedia (or Citizendium) other than User:Larry Sanger.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-lists@citizendium.orgwrote:
First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it "annoying." If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms.
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Larry Sanger < sanger-lists@citizendium.org> wrote:
First, whether or not it really is, Wikipedia (like Citizendium and other similar projects) ought to be democratic, open, and devoted to free speech in a certain sense. The sense is that, as long as a person is generally abiding by the rules of the community, he has a right to speak out in public forums, even if others find it "annoying." If a mob of others are outraged at what he says, they have the right to try to refute him (under the same reasonable rules); but they do not have the right to demand that he be silenced. As soon as they gain such authority, the mob is de facto making the rules, which is fine for people who love mobs, but absolutely terrible for most of humanity and for anybody who cares about justice and other things that cannot be made into silly acronyms.
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&...
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&... _______________________________________________
So apparently Citizendium allows free speech but only if you are very polite, which includes not pointing out other people's breach of the rules. (I had written a much more pointy response but then deleted it.)
Will "is this horse dead yet" Johnson
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 5:32 AM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony wikimail@inbox.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 7:51 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
And don't forget
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&...
So apparently Citizendium allows free speech but only if you are very polite, which includes not pointing out other people's breach of the rules. (I had written a much more pointy response but then deleted it.)
No, this has nothing to do with free speech. Both Larry and Jimbo have a right to remove unhelpful complaints, but they were both wrong because they removed legitimate complaints.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&...
And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia.
--Oskar
Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more accurate than the citizendium one in this case:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homeopathy
On 11/04/2009, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
And don't forget http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Homeopathy/Draft&diff=prev&...
And that right there is why Citizendium will never be as good as wikipedia.
--Oskar
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ian Woollard wrote:
Ironically, even the conservapedia homeopathy article is probably more accurate than the citizendium one in this case:
I /really/ don't think Wikipedia wants a pissing contest here.
Do we really want to compare the worst article we can find on Citizendium with Wikipedians worst?????
I think we'd clearly lose.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
"The Constabulary"? How precious! Yet another reason why I won't be going there.
Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Pot meet kettle. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=1004...
"The Constabulary"? How precious! Yet another reason why I won't be going there.
"A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism."
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Fred Bauder
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
- d.
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
I don't get the point.
In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader.
Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
Michel
2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org:
I don't get the point. In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader. Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying "I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME" falls afoul of it.
You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea.
- d.
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org:
I don't get the point. In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader. Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying "I'M GOING TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME" falls afoul of it.
You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea.
There's very probably an article on Wikipedia somewhere explaining just what you did there.
/end of discussion for me too.
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
I don't get the point.
In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you criticise the Dear Leader.
Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
My understanding was that the North Koreans have a very egalitarian policy: Nobody has access to the internet. ;-)
Ec
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:07 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
Can I request that this thread now end and that we don't engage in a wholly unedifying attack on Larry, Citizendium or anyone else.
Seconded. And that's my last post to this thread.
Carcharoth
2009/4/11 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
On Wikipedia, if you have an issue with an editor, you post a message on his/her talk page. What do the rules on any outside website have to do with the way things are done on Wikipedia?
Michel
Fred Bauder arranged electrons to indicate (back on 04/11/2009 07:58 AM) that:
"A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism."
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints
Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge complaints...
Complaining is Not Allowed, so problems cannot exist. Kewl.
I sure won't be participating in any society where people address each other as "Citoyen," even if they have renamed the Committee of Public Safety.
Larry Sanger wrote:
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic.
I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]].
For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome here as you seem to think. If you have meta-level proposals you want to advance --- Wikipedia should change X because of Y --- I think people would take them seriously, especially if there was a concrete, potentially workable proposal. Such proposals would at the very least spark discussion.
It's just that nobody wants to debate "who founded Wikipedia" on this list. We don't even necessarily all disagree with you on the subject. But it's not clear what gain will be had by debating it here, or what the outcome is supposed to be. Lots of people saying they agree? I don't actually think Jimmy would get a much more favorable reaction if he started trying to debate similar issues here, either.
I think you might also be aiming at the wrong audience to some extent. You seem to accept the media-narrative "founder myth" of Wikipedia as this thing that sprang whole cloth out of nothingness due to the ingenuity of Jimmy Wales; save only that you'd like to modify the credit to include Larry Sanger in an equally or more prominent role. But my impression is that this is mainly an external view. Most of the knowledgeable Wikipedians I know take a more complex view, crediting to various degrees: Ward Cunningham's development of wikis; the development of community and social norms on WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki; the expansion of subject-specific wiki encyclopedias from the original design-patterns-encyclopedia focus of WikiWikiWeb to cover ever more areas of knowledge; the parallel cropping up of non-wiki "all human knowledge written by random people on the internet" compendia like Everything2; and so on. You and Jimmy were among many actors in that sea of ideas; what precise credit is due to each such actor for developing those ideas or accelerating their spread and recombination is probably a matter for historians more than us. But on the whole if you want a bigger role in a simplified founding saga, you might be addressing the wrong audience if many of us don't believe in the saga to begin with. =]
-Mark
2009/4/12 Delirium delirium@hackish.org:
Larry Sanger wrote:
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic.
For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome here as you seem to think.
Seconded.
- d.
Delirium wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
I can recognize when I am no longer welcome. I didn't really believe I ever was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try. I've always been optimistic.
I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here without continuing to cause an uproar among them. So I will stop. Those who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]].
For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome here as you seem to think. If you have meta-level proposals you want to advance --- Wikipedia should change X because of Y --- I think people would take them seriously, especially if there was a concrete, potentially workable proposal. Such proposals would at the very least spark discussion.
It's just that nobody wants to debate "who founded Wikipedia" on this list. We don't even necessarily all disagree with you on the subject. But it's not clear what gain will be had by debating it here, or what the outcome is supposed to be. Lots of people saying they agree? I don't actually think Jimmy would get a much more favorable reaction if he started trying to debate similar issues here, either.
I think you might also be aiming at the wrong audience to some extent. You seem to accept the media-narrative "founder myth" of Wikipedia as this thing that sprang whole cloth out of nothingness due to the ingenuity of Jimmy Wales; save only that you'd like to modify the credit to include Larry Sanger in an equally or more prominent role. But my impression is that this is mainly an external view. Most of the knowledgeable Wikipedians I know take a more complex view, crediting to various degrees: Ward Cunningham's development of wikis; the development of community and social norms on WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki; the expansion of subject-specific wiki encyclopedias from the original design-patterns-encyclopedia focus of WikiWikiWeb to cover ever more areas of knowledge; the parallel cropping up of non-wiki "all human knowledge written by random people on the internet" compendia like Everything2; and so on. You and Jimmy were among many actors in that sea of ideas; what precise credit is due to each such actor for developing those ideas or accelerating their spread and recombination is probably a matter for historians more than us. But on the whole if you want a bigger role in a simplified founding saga, you might be addressing the wrong audience if many of us don't believe in the saga to begin with. =]
I would suggest that the best place for an open discussion would be a face-to-face encounter between Jimmy and Larry at Wikimania. Perhaps Ward and Sunir and other key historical persons could also be present for this.
Following that Larry could be appointed to the advisory board at the usual salary.
Ec