Perhaps people began questioning it when they notice that he only uses the honorific to get press for his criticisms of a project that he does not contribute to, and in fact seems to have only contributed to when it was financially useful to him to do so.
-Snowspinner
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
Part I : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml?tid=95
Part II : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml? tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
Some blogworld commentary is at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/04/18/ sanger_on_wikipedia.php
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
"I was virtually always referred to as a co-founder until last year. What has changed?
Wikipedia was my idea (in the very robust sense explained in my memoir), its main founding principles were in large part mine and enforced by me, and I did more than anyone to organize it. It simply would not have existed if I had started it, indeed while being employed by Jimmy. It was on that basis that I was for several years credibly and repeatedly called "co-founder" of the project.
The fact that I was Jimmy's employee, which I freely admit, does not mean I was not also a co-founder of the project.
Until last year, again, this was my honorific, and until this year, nobody has bothered questioning it. I wonder why."
Pete
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l