On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 15:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com wrote:
In my book I described Nupedia, and how that system of having a paid head didn't work out (namely, Larry Sanger as editor in chief).
While I don't like Sanger, it shouldn't be forgot that he was responsible for building the initial system on Wikipedia itself. Wikinews, unlike Wikipedia, requires larger care; not just setting up very initial rules.¨
Not so, and not so. I don't square with either of your interpretation´of the history...
"not so, not so =" "You like Sanger" and "it should be forgot"? :P
The fact that Larry Sanger did not pan out as an editor in chief had nothing to do with the fact that he was paid for his work. He could have worked for peanuts or completely gratis, and what we would have had would have been a premature Citizendium.
As for "building" the initial system of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger fought the building of it tooth and nail to the last, until Jimbo realized he was doing more harm than good.
One thing is what he wanted, the other is what he did. He created the roots of Wikipedia, no matter if he preferred Nupedia.