[Wikipedia-l] Sanger/Wales wars continued

[Phil Sandifer]

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 at Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>