On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 15:07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih
<andrew.lih(a)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.