[WikiEN-l] Foundation and History

[David Goodman]

different people have made different claims at various times, and
published sources exist.  just cite them all.

On 8/2/07, InkSplotch <inkblot14 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> --
> "Stercus, stercus, stercus, moritus sum!"
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


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