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: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

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=14… 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