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@yahoo.ca Reply-To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 23:40:07 -0500 (EST) To: wikipedia-l@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@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l