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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

Durova wrote: 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

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com 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).

<<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 &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; To: English Wikipedia &lt;wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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, Anthony&lt;wikimail(a)inbox.org&gt; wrote: reasonable 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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. 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.