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 sourced, 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 I'm 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.
InkSplotch
different people have made different claims at various times, and published sources exist. just cite them all.
On 8/2/07, InkSplotch inkblot14@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 sourced, 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 I'm 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.
InkSplotch
-- "Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!" _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 02/08/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
different people have made different claims at various times, and published sources exist. just cite them all.
Exactly. If something is disputed, say it's disputed and find sources to support that fact. Don't try and find a reliable source for something which isn't reliably known, since such a thing is impossible.
On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/08/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
different people have made different claims at various times, and published sources exist. just cite them all.
Exactly. If something is disputed, say it's disputed and find sources to support that fact. Don't try and find a reliable source for something which isn't reliably known, since such a thing is impossible.
But in every related article? What does it have to do with the Wikimedia Foundation? Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of Wikipedia article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy Wales' article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay Controversy article.
It looks to me like some people are fighting a war on this, and that's just plain damaging. In my searching just now, I found an RFC for someone pushing this POV: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/QuackGuru And guess what? It's who I was trying to work with on Wikimedia Foundation last night. The same editor who, frankly, made me give up when he told me "co-founder is reliably sourced" and the term owner "is unverified." So apparently, Wales did not own Wikipedia when he set up Wikimedia to transfer ownership.
I think it is a legitimate topic to cover, as there are multiple sources discussing the controversy. I just think it ought to be in one place, Wikipedia or 'History of Wikipedia' and we ought to be able to find a neutral way to refer to Wales and Sanger outside of that article which doesn't establish a distinct POV on the matter.
InkSplotch
But in every related article? What does it have to do with the Wikimedia Foundation? Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of Wikipedia article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy Wales' article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay Controversy article.
You have two options that I can see. Give a brief description of the dispute (one or two sentences) or say something quite vague and undisputed ("[[Larry Sanger]], who was with Wikipedia from the beginning, ...") and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more.
On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But in every related article? What does it have to do with the
Wikimedia
Foundation? Does it need to be in Wikipedia's article, History of
Wikipedia
article, Wikipedians With Articles article (or is it a list?), Jimmy
Wales'
article, Larry Sanger's article, Citizendeium's article, the Essjay Controversy article.
You have two options that I can see. Give a brief description of the dispute (one or two sentences) or say something quite vague and undisputed ("[[Larry Sanger]], who was with Wikipedia from the beginning, ...") and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more.
This is pretty much the approach I've tried taking. However, there are some editors who are ardent that it be one particular way. There's been an RFC already, and extensive discussion currently collected on the talk page of Larry Sanger's article. I'm beginning to think consensus is on my side here, but there's one or two who will edit war about it to no end...now, or weeks from now, they'll be back to make changes to the disputed form.
So, I'm at a loss. I don't want to fight this, I've tried discussing it but it's like talking to a wall. In fact, since I've found more on this dispute, it looks like QuackGuru was cutting and pasting previous quotes of himself to our recent conversation. From what I've found this morning, I think theres enough to take it before arbcom. I don't want to. It's essentially a content dispute that's so near to our hearts its driving editors to disruptive behavior.
Is there a way, another fora than arbcom, where the community can discuss this issue - decide how we'll use the word "founder" and settle it for good?
InkSplotch
Is there a way, another fora than arbcom, where the community can discuss this issue - decide how we'll use the word "founder" and settle it for good?
Yes, RFC, but you say you've already tried that. RFC's don't really work unless the people involved are willing to listen to the comments, and it sounds like some aren't.
I don't really see how there can be any reasonable arguments for any position other than simply describing it as disputed. Wikipedia does not exist to settle disputes, we don't decide who is right in an argument, we just report on the argument.
On 8/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You have two options that I can see. Give a brief description of the dispute (one or two sentences) or say something quite vague and undisputed ("[[Larry Sanger]], who was with Wikipedia from the beginning, ...") and let the reader follow the link if they want to know more.
If one of the only two options is to spread the [[Wales-Sanger Wikipedia foundership dispute]] (a future "good article", just wait and see...) onto every page that mentions either of them by name, intentional vagueness is probably the lesser evil.
—C.W.
On 04/08/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
If one of the only two options is to spread the [[Wales-Sanger Wikipedia foundership dispute]] (a future "good article", just wait and see...) onto every page that mentions either of them by name, intentional vagueness is probably the lesser evil.
[[List of Wikipedia founders]]. I can see it now.
Deliberately loose wording covers a multitude of sins. Never a good first option, but when your sources violently and comprehensively disagree, or when you have absolutely no idea what something actually means...
I've just been active in restructuring and rewriting [[History of Wikipedia]]. Hopefully it's handled fairly neutrally there.
Version permalink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Wikipedia&oldid=148... 25#Conceptual_origins
If there are issues on it, or you can propose ways to improve it, I'd be glad to discuss, since NPOV applies as much (or more) to selfref's as any other article.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of InkSplotch Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 5:14 AM Subject: [WikiEN-l] Foundation and History
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 sourced, 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 I'm 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.
InkSplotch