Larry Sanger wrote:
Two more replies...
Charles Matthews wrote:
Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil.
Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely "flaming" Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained.
Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways.
Fred Bauder replied:
As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent.
Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply.
I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't.
Yes, the bit where you write: "Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory.
Cutting to the chase, it seems perfectly easy to say "a pox on both your houses" in the dispute on the "founder" badge; and yet to defend Wikipedia. In fact it's been a good few days, with positive write-ups in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the London Observer. Noam Cohen in the NYT mentions "there is a professional class of Wikipedia skeptics". If you haven't already, you should see the context there.
Charles