In a message dated 4/16/2009 9:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else. I don't see anything to tell me that Larry was complaining about anything or anyone except something Jimmy said.
Will
************** Great deals on Dell’s most popular laptops – Starting at $479 (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220029082x1201385915/aol?redir=http...)
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent our opinion and should not be taken as such (particularly by reporters)?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't. Even in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay attention to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent our 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 historical fact.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
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 Citizendium.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Ken Arromdee wrote:
He obviously is claiming that things which we say are true, aren't.
Even
in the non-article case, where he objects to the factual content of proclamations by us instead of articles by us, this is something we should pay
attention
to.>>
Proclamations by Jimmy, not by anyone else.
Is it clear that the proclamations from him don't necessarily represent
our
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 historical fact.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
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 Citizendium.
Not by anyone with a clue. The merit of Sanger's claim to co-foundership of Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the success of Citizendium.
Durova wrote:
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 Citizendium.
A bit like Einstein, then: his claim to have founded quantum theory (about which he was a skeptic, and in fact wrong as fas as we know) being judged by the success of his unified field theory? No, something a bit amiss there. I like the first part, though: light as quanta was a big deal and worth his Nobel; and then he couldn't take the ultimate consequences for physics.
Charles
Sanger's claim of cofoundership is implicitly a claim of credit for Wikipedia's success. The idea of applying a wiki editing environment outside the sphere of software development was a radical one and a powerful one, but as anyone who has worked on other wikis knows that concept alone is no guarantee of success.
Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia's structure and dynamics are well reasoned. One of the pitfalls of Wikipedia, though, is how easy it is to kid oneself into thinking one understands it better than one does. By the time Citizendium launched Wikipedia was resolving elements of Sanger's most salient criticisms through other means than he envisioned. The disruptive editing guideline is an example. That's not particular to Sanger: Wikipedia is just too big and fast-moving for any one person to keep pace. Last fall when Jimbo withdrew an old affirmation about having an article for every episode of *The Simpsons*, the obvious response was to link the title of every *Simpsons* episode FA (Wikipedia has quite a few).
Sanger's outlook could be characterized as a belief that the way to achieve quality is to pursue it. Wikipedia has gotten where it is by allowing quality to overrun it.
Take an average article today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_tree
Compare to where it was in fall 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yucca_brevifolia&oldid=7911136...
Cats can be taught to play 'Fetch'; the secret is to let the cat teach you to play 'Throw'.
-Durova the Cat Herder
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Durova wrote:
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 Citizendium.
A bit like Einstein, then: his claim to have founded quantum theory (about which he was a skeptic, and in fact wrong as fas as we know) being judged by the success of his unified field theory? No, something a bit amiss there. I like the first part, though: light as quanta was a big deal and worth his Nobel; and then he couldn't take the ultimate consequences for physics.
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@gmail.com
wrote:
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 historical fact.
Did Wales ever directly call Sanger a co-founder? I don't think he did.
In any case, I don't think the question of semantics as to whether or not Sanger is "co-founder" is interesting (though I do think a description of Jimbo as "sole founder" cannot possibly be sustained). What is interesting is the role that Sanger played in the creation of Wikipedia (which I've recently seen that Wales admitted that his role was one of direct causation), and the role that Sanger played in the policy formation of Wikipedia during the early years (which I'm personally not yet sure of).
Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "founder" by which that is true.
Is Sanger a "co-founder" of Wikipedia? I think that's harder to answer, and I'm not even sure it's just the definition of "co-founder" that's problematic, but the definition of "Wikipedia" as well. Were Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross "co-founders" of Firefox? I'd call Sanger a "co-creator" of Wikipedia, not a "co-founder" of it. I suppose the term "founder" could be used as a synonym for "creator", but for some reason I don't feel comfortable using it that way, and I think it's the same reason I wouldn't feel comfortable calling Hyatt and Ross "co-founders" of Firefox. Firefox, like Wikipedia, was a side project sponsored by a for-profit company which eventually supplanted the main project, and a non-profit organization was later formed to take ownership of it (sort of, in the sense that one can "own" an open source project in the first place).
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "founder" by which that is true.
I would make the following observations based on my reading:
1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it. "Employee" is probably giving too little. 2) Some statements Wales made about Sanger's involvement are demonstrably untrue - Sanger has produced emails that show this. I'm prepared to accept that this is human fallability and vanity rather than some mastermind scheme to diddle Sanger out of his place in history. 3) None of this really matters because we all love Jimbo and we don't like Sanger. I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo.
Steve
<<None of this really matters because we all love Jimbo and we don't like Sanger. I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo.>>
Uh.... I wouldn't be so fast to assume who we love and who we don't like. They both seem to have a certain type of personality that doesn't really work well with a consensus approach which is a bit odd. Both are the type that "do and damn the consequences", and slow to apologize or offer constructive solutions. That's my opinion ;) Not that I'm not exactly the same way myself.
W.J.
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, Aug 10, 2009 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Lies, damned lies, and statistics
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a
reasonable
definition of "founder" by which that is true.
I would make the following observations based on my reading:
1) Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit. The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it. "Employee" is probably gi ving too little. 2) Some statements Wales made about Sanger's involvement are demonstrably untrue - Sanger has produced emails that show this. I'm prepared to accept that this is human fallability and vanity rather than some mastermind scheme to diddle Sanger out of his place in history. 3) None of this really matters because we all love Jimbo and we don't like Sanger. I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo.
Steve
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Steve Bennett wrote:
I mean, all else aside, Jimbo contributed a huge amount to Wikipedia basically out of a desire to help the human race. Sanger made Citizendium out of a desire to piss off Jimbo.
Debatable. But I think the way Sanger systematically misunderstands the virtues of WP, and has with CZ promoted some other "deadly virtues" like having credentialled people as a better class of 'citizen', is certainly telling.
Charles
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Anthonywikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Is Wales "sole founder"? I don't think you can come up with a reasonable definition of "founder" by which that is true.
I would make the following observations based on my reading:
- Wales' role in the genesis of Wikipedia is much more significant
than Sanger's. "Co-founder" is giving too much credit.
Personally I don't think "founder" or "co-founder" makes sense. Would you call someone a "co-founder" of Firefox? I wouldn't. "Co-creator" seems more accurate.
The guy that has the idea, the inspiration and the drive to make it happen deserves more credit than the guy who implements it.
What I've read suggests that *both* Sanger *and* Wales had the idea, the inspiration, and the drive to make it happen. And they *both* got the idea from someone else.
"Employee" is probably giving too little.
Wales was an employee of Bomis too. "Employee" is irrelevant. Wales was the boss of Sanger, but that's irrelevant too. Just because someone is your boss doesn't mean they get sole credit for your co-creation.
2009/8/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
Personally I don't think "founder" or "co-founder" makes sense. Would you call someone a "co-founder" of Firefox? I wouldn't. "Co-creator" seems more accurate.
Jargon per project style. "Project founder" makes sense in terms of Firefox, i.e. Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross, neither of whom has done any coding on it in quite a while.
- d.