I think the two most telling things about Larry Sanger's criticisms are
his unwillingness to contribute volunteer time to Wikipedia, and his
seeming belief that Nupedia was the way to go, despite obvious factual
evidence to the contrary.
Which is to say, if he was right, I suspect it would have manifested in
some actual success for Nupedia.
-Snowspinner
On Jan 4, 2005, at 5:53 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Larry Sanger NEVER cited a reference for any
information he placed in
Wikipedia. His attitude was that he had mastered the field of
philosophy and
using his expertise could determine what was to be in the article or
excluded from it. Withering contempt was directed at anyone who tried
to
contest his assertions.
That said, we all, both in our fields of expertise and in areas we
have from
time to time taken an interest in, need to regularly cite authority
both for
our edits and for our assertions that something ought not to be
included.
Fred
From: Shaun MacPherson
<shaun_macpherson2001(a)yahoo.ca>
Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:40:07 -0500 (EST)
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] A Solution to Larry Sanger's Criticisms -
Project Has
Been Around For A While
Larry Sanger believes that the solution to make
Wikipedia more credible are with experts. You can see
a good article descriping his criticisms here (
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/03/144207&tid=95&tid=1
) posted on Jan 3, 2004.
I think the easiest way to make Wikipedia more
credible is with a Fact and Reference Project, which
the community has been developing over a period of
more than a few months now: (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:
WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
).
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l