An open letter to Jimmy Wales

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
138 messages Options
1 ... 34567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Nathan Awrich
Folks, shout Larry down all you want - I know I personally would be happy to
see the co-founder dispute disappear forever. But threats to block or
moderate him are overboard; there is no basis for either action (and a block
would result in repercussions for the blocking admin, I'd imagine).

Nathan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Sean Barrett-3
In reply to this post by Fred Bauder-2
Fred Bauder arranged electrons to indicate (back on 04/11/2009 07:58 AM)
that:

> "A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making
> complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the
> behavior of another Citizen, e-mail [hidden email]. It is
> contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See
> also CZ:Professionalism."
>
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nocomplaints
>
> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
> complaints...
Complaining is Not Allowed, so problems cannot exist.  Kewl.

I sure won't be participating in any society where people address each
other as "Citoyen," even if they have renamed the Committee of Public
Safety.

--
 Sean Barrett       | Free Tibet*
 [hidden email]   | * with purchase of
 home: 310-641-9625 |   another Tibet of equal
 cell: 310-739-3785 |   or greater value.



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Fayssal F.
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
Depends... Michel may be comparing Wikipedia (and this list in particular)
to NK as well.

Fayssal F.


> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:11:07 +0100
> From: David Gerard <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales
> To: English Wikipedia <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
>        <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/4/11 Michel Vuijlsteke <[hidden email]>:
>
> > I don't get the point.
> > In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you
> > criticise the Dear Leader.
> > Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
>
>
> No, it's that wikien-l has a civility rule too. And saying "I'M GOING
> TO REPEAT MYSELF FOREVER UNTIL YOU AGREE WITH ME" falls afoul of it.
>
> You appear to be comparing Citizendium to North Korea.
>
>
> - d.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Michel Vuijlsteke-2
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:

> 2009/4/11 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> 2009/4/11 Fred Bauder <[hidden email]>:
>>    
>>> Unreal! And Larry Sanger thought he could come to Wikipedia and lodge
>>> complaints...
>>>      
>> Indeed. It's the bit where he's behaving here in a manner that
>> wouldn't be put up with for a second on Citizendium or any of its
>> associated mailing lists or forums that's most surprising.
>>    
> I don't get the point.
>
> In North Korea I assume it's not looked favourably upon when you
> criticise the Dear Leader.
>
> Does that mean that no North Korean should criticise WMF on Wikipedia?
>
>  
My understanding was that the North Koreans have a very egalitarian
policy: Nobody has access to the internet.  ;-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Daniel R. Tobias
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Pot meet kettle.
> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185

A lot of people have the sort of double standard I discussed in my
WP:SAUCE essay:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sauce_for_the_goose_is_(not)_sa
uce_for_the_gander

You guys are right, and you're wrong.  Sanger seems to be factually
correct in his assertion of co-foundership given that Jimbo himself
put matters that way until inexplicably changing his mind later.  
However, when he insists on a "right" to state his point here, he
starts sounding like various crackpots who insist on their "right" to
rant everywhere they want to, even on private property.  On the other
hand, it isn't very healthy for this project to take an attitude of
"if you can't argue logically against that guy's point, just call him
a troll and ban him!"  A wide degree of free speech in meta-
discussion is in keeping with the aims of the project, which is the
point I made (or dead horse I kept beating...) during the BADSITES
wars.


--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

David Gerard-2
2009/4/12 Daniel R. Tobias <[hidden email]>:

> You guys are right, and you're wrong.  Sanger seems to be factually
> correct in his assertion of co-foundership given that Jimbo himself
> put matters that way until inexplicably changing his mind later.
> However, when he insists on a "right" to state his point here, he
> starts sounding like various crackpots who insist on their "right" to
> rant everywhere they want to, even on private property.  On the other
> hand, it isn't very healthy for this project to take an attitude of
> "if you can't argue logically against that guy's point, just call him
> a troll and ban him!"  A wide degree of free speech in meta-
> discussion is in keeping with the aims of the project, which is the
> point I made (or dead horse I kept beating...) during the BADSITES
> wars.


Larry isn't on moderation. However, when he's going headlong into
green ink territory, I'm most certainly going to say so.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Oskar Sigvardsson
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 8:45 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Larry isn't on moderation. However, when he's going headlong into
> green ink territory, I'm most certainly going to say so.

I seriously doubt that you'd be the only one.

--Oskar

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Mark
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
Larry Sanger wrote:
> I can recognize when I am no longer welcome.  I didn't really believe I ever
> was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try.  I've always been
> optimistic.
>
> I assume that, since the self-appointed silencers among you are apparently
> operating with impunity, I could not possibly continue to press my case here
> without continuing to cause an uproar among them.  So I will stop.  Those
> who wanted to silence me have done so successfully, just as your fearless
> leader did on [[User talk:Jimmy Wales]].

For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome
here as you seem to think. If you have meta-level proposals you want to
advance --- Wikipedia should change X because of Y --- I think people
would take them seriously, especially if there was a concrete,
potentially workable proposal. Such proposals would at the very least
spark discussion.

It's just that nobody wants to debate "who founded Wikipedia" on this
list. We don't even necessarily all disagree with you on the subject.
But it's not clear what gain will be had by debating it here, or what
the outcome is supposed to be. Lots of people saying they agree? I don't
actually think Jimmy would get a much more favorable reaction if he
started trying to debate similar issues here, either.

I think you might also be aiming at the wrong audience to some extent.
You seem to accept the media-narrative "founder myth" of Wikipedia as
this thing that sprang whole cloth out of nothingness due to the
ingenuity of Jimmy Wales; save only that you'd like to modify the credit
to include Larry Sanger in an equally or more prominent role. But my
impression is that this is mainly an external view. Most of the
knowledgeable Wikipedians I know take a more complex view, crediting to
various degrees: Ward Cunningham's development of wikis; the development
of community and social norms on WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki; the
expansion of subject-specific wiki encyclopedias from the original
design-patterns-encyclopedia focus of WikiWikiWeb to cover ever more
areas of knowledge; the parallel cropping up of non-wiki "all human
knowledge written by random people on the internet" compendia like
Everything2; and so on. You and Jimmy were among many actors in that sea
of ideas; what precise credit is due to each such actor for developing
those ideas or accelerating their spread and recombination is probably a
matter for historians more than us. But on the whole if you want a
bigger role in a simplified founding saga, you might be addressing the
wrong audience if many of us don't believe in the saga to begin with. =]

-Mark

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

David Gerard-2
2009/4/12 Delirium <[hidden email]>:
> Larry Sanger wrote:

>> I can recognize when I am no longer welcome.  I didn't really believe I ever
>> was welcome to begin with, but I was willing to try.  I've always been
>> optimistic.

> For what it's worth, I don't think you're actually nearly as unwelcome
> here as you seem to think.


Seconded.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Mike R-2
In reply to this post by Phil Nash-2
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Phil Nash <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> It is not, and you have no "right" to anything other than as an ordinary
> user of Wikipedia. [[WP:SOAPBOX]] and [[WP:POINT]] spring to mind. Your
> personal disagreements have no place either in Wikipedia or on this list, so
> I strongly advise you to take them elsewhere. As an Admin, I'd have no
> qualms about blocking you indefinitely if this does not immediately stop.
> Whereas you might also have sockpuppets and meatpuppets, their blocking
> would follow as sure as night follows day. But the bottom line is that this
> disruption is unseemly and intolerable. Some of us have an encyclopedia to
> build, and personal disputes are inimical to that purpose.
>
> Please stop wasting our time.

Who are you on wiki?

-Mike R

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Daniel R. Tobias
Daniel R. Tobias wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> Pot meet kettle.
>> http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk%3AHomeopathy%2FDraft&diff=100448194&oldid=100448185
>>    
>
> A lot of people have the sort of double standard I discussed in my
> WP:SAUCE essay:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sauce_for_the_goose_is_(not)_sa
> uce_for_the_gander
>
> You guys are right, and you're wrong.  Sanger seems to be factually
> correct in his assertion of co-foundership given that Jimbo himself
> put matters that way until inexplicably changing his mind later.  
> However, when he insists on a "right" to state his point here, he
> starts sounding like various crackpots who insist on their "right" to
> rant everywhere they want to, even on private property.  On the other
> hand, it isn't very healthy for this project to take an attitude of
> "if you can't argue logically against that guy's point, just call him
> a troll and ban him!"  A wide degree of free speech in meta-
> discussion is in keeping with the aims of the project, which is the
> point I made (or dead horse I kept beating...) during the BADSITES
> wars.
>
>
>  


I think *this* is something that needs to be addressed.
Larry's shrill effrontery does not, but if people are confused
to the degree that they think his views have merit, that
clearly needs to be clarified.

What has been muddied in all this is the question of
*what* precisely does Sanger claim to have co-founded.

Personally my view is that if we are talking about taking
credit for starting a quick and dirty scratchpad for
creating material from which experts can cull "the good
stuff" for Nupedia; I am not interested who gets the
credit. That I think is a discredited approach - though
perhaps Veropedia will in the future prove even that
temporary judgment to not have been ultimately
unassailable; in which case the original conception
of wikipedia as a mere scratchpad will have been
somewhat vindicated.

What would *really* interest me, and what I consider
to be the seminal moment - even the foundational moment -
in creating the wikipedia we all know; is when somebody
made the conceptual breakthrough to the vision of
wikipedia as something sui generis, and freestanding.

I am betting there were hold-outs fairly long into the
last days of Nupedia, who still thought it should be
revivified in some form. I think for anyone who really
wants to put a face on the founding of wikipedia, it
would serve well if we revisited that particular period,
and gave credit to who ever it was that first suggested
that Wikipedia was *it*, and Nupedia wasn't. If that
was Larry Sanger, I *do* think he deserves the credit,
though that would clearly make him an apostate, since
he has clearly spent much of his time lately arguing that
no, after all, wikipedia _wasn't_ *it*.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Brian J Mingus
This is exactly what matters. From what I can tell Sanger wrote much of
Wikipedia's initialy policy - policy that lives on today in various edited
forms. Not only was he key in coming up with the more formal guidelines for
Nupedia, he personally wrote many of the informal guidelines that came to be
used on Wikipedia. This is well documented on archive.org and Wikipedia
itself.

Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take off,
Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither of them
expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or too much
credit for it. Both of their lives have been redefined by Wikipedia's
success and it seems reasonably human to not want to let go of that. At the
same time, while an individual can co-found an encyclopedia, they cannot
take credit for the community's work.

I say this because I get the feeling that Wales and Sanger both believe
there is a lot at stake here and at the same time I feel that they both take
too much credit for what has happened. What they did is akin to writing an
academic paper that first introduces an idea. They cannot claim authorship
or credit for all of the publications that cite their initial publication -
just the initial idea. It seems clear that this initial idea was authored
and implemented by Sanger & Wales (2001?). It would be a grave injustice to
just cite Wales (2001) if the idea was only part, or not even, his.


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> but if people are confused
> to the degree that they think his views have merit, that
> clearly needs to be clarified.
>
> What has been muddied in all this is the question of
> *what* precisely does Sanger claim to have co-founded.
>
> [...]
>
> What would *really* interest me, and what I consider
> to be the seminal moment - even the foundational moment -
> in creating the wikipedia we all know; is when somebody
> made the conceptual breakthrough to the vision of
> wikipedia as something sui generis, and freestanding.
>
> I am betting there were hold-outs fairly long into the
> last days of Nupedia, who still thought it should be
> revivified in some form. I think for anyone who really
> wants to put a face on the founding of wikipedia, it
> would serve well if we revisited that particular period,
> and gave credit to who ever it was that first suggested
> that Wikipedia was *it*, and Nupedia wasn't. If that
> was Larry Sanger, I *do* think he deserves the credit,
> though that would clearly make him an apostate, since
> he has clearly spent much of his time lately arguing that
> no, after all, wikipedia _wasn't_ *it*.
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
In a message dated 4/12/2009 9:31:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> This is exactly what matters. From what I can tell Sanger wrote much of
> Wikipedia's initialy policy - policy that lives on today in various edited
> forms. Not only was he key in coming up with the more formal guidelines
> for
> Nupedia, he personally wrote many of the informal guidelines that came to
> be
> used on Wikipedia. This is well documented on archive.org and Wikipedia
> itself.>>
----------------
{{fact}}

As far as "on Wikipedia itself" and "policy", we see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research&
diff=2014983&oldid=2014449

The first two edits to WP:NOR for example, which is one of the core
policies.

Maybe you could post something that shows you evidence on this?

Will Johnson





**************
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000035&amp;ncid=emlcntusdown00000002)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
Brian wrote:

>
> I say this because I get the feeling that Wales and Sanger both believe
> there is a lot at stake here and at the same time I feel that they both take
> too much credit for what has happened. What they did is akin to writing an
> academic paper that first introduces an idea. They cannot claim authorship
> or credit for all of the publications that cite their initial publication -
> just the initial idea. It seems clear that this initial idea was authored
> and implemented by Sanger & Wales (2001?). It would be a grave injustice to
> just cite Wales (2001) if the idea was only part, or not even, his.
>
>  

Since you frame your analogy in terms of scientific ideas,
I think it would be much more accurate to put it in terms
of Sanger & Wales putting forth a later discredited theory,
which however was tangential and part of the broader
scientific thread of inquiry that eventually brought forth
a tenable theory.

To put it in more concrete terms, visualize Sanger &
Wales (2001) as being Lamarckianism. Something close,
but not quite on point. Wikipedia, as it stands now,
would be Darwinism, very well established as the most
robust theory out there, but with important wrinkles
that still need to be ironed out.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Sheldon Rampton
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take  
> off,
> Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither  
> of them
> expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or  
> too much
> credit for it.

The fact that they were surprised by its success does not mean that  
they don't deserve credit for it. History is full of ideas whose  
success surprised their creators. I'm sure the Beatles were surprised  
when they soared to the top of the music charts (especially after they  
had spent years grinding away with only modest success in Hamburg and  
Liverpool). When Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux,  
he had no way of knowing that it would take off the way it did. That  
doesn't mean the Beatles don't deserve credit for their music or  
Torvalds doesn't deserve credit for Linux.

If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales  
deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of  
an online encyclopedia after their first attempt, they persevered,  
retooled and came up with an alternative approach that did work. Of  
course they had no way of knowing what a success it would become. They  
got lucky, and a huge community of other people has contributed in  
various ways. But they still deserve credit for the original innovation.

-------------------------------------------

SHELDON RAMPTON
Research director, Center for Media & Democracy
Center for Media & Democracy
520 University Avenue, Suite 227
Madison, WI 53703
phone: 608-260-9713

Subscribe to our free Weekly Spin email:
<http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html>

Subscribe to our Weekly Radio Spin podcasts:
<http://www.prwatch.org/audio/feed>

Read and add to articles on people, issues and groups shaping the
public agenda:
<http://www.sourcewatch.org>

Support independent, public interest reporting:
<http://www.prwatch.org/donate>




_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

WJhonson
In reply to this post by Larry Sanger-2
In a message dated 4/12/2009 11:13:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:


> If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales  
> deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of  
> an online encyclopedia after their first attempt,>>

That reminds me of the follow up question I was thinking about the other day.
 Is Citizendium everything that was in Nupedia, plus new stuff?  Or did
Citizendium start over from nothing?  Or (C) ?

Will Johnson




**************
Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlweusdown00000035&amp;ncid=emlcntusdown00000002)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

David Gerard-2
2009/4/13  <[hidden email]>:
> In a message dated 4/12/2009 11:13:22 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [hidden email] writes:

>> If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales
>> deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of
>> an online encyclopedia after their first attempt,>>

> That reminds me of the follow up question I was thinking about the other day.
>  Is Citizendium everything that was in Nupedia, plus new stuff?  Or did
> Citizendium start over from nothing?  Or (C) ?


(c) - it started forking the entire content of Wikipedia, then
abandoned this, deleted all Wikipedia articles that hadn't been edited
and started writing fresh stuff. This is all in the Wikipedia article.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Sheldon Rampton
Sheldon Rampton wrote:

> Brian <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> Let's be clear that, especially after the failure of Nupedia to take  
>> off,
>> Wikipedia's success was a surprise both to Sanger and Wales. Neither  
>> of them
>> expected that this would happen and can therefore not take full or  
>> too much
>> credit for it.
>>    
>
> The fact that they were surprised by its success does not mean that  
> they don't deserve credit for it. History is full of ideas whose  
> success surprised their creators. I'm sure the Beatles were surprised  
> when they soared to the top of the music charts (especially after they  
> had spent years grinding away with only modest success in Hamburg and  
> Liverpool).

I agree with the above, and in fact consider it a partial
refutation of the views I myself floated previously
in this thread, as far as it is an accurate characterization
of what really happened (which I cannot judge).

> When Linus Torvalds released the first version of Linux,  
> he had no way of knowing that it would take off the way it did. That  
> doesn't mean the Beatles don't deserve credit for their music or  
> Torvalds doesn't deserve credit for Linux.
>  
This is a more interesting case though. Minix did not
take off. Somewhere along the way, well after the first
version of Linux, Torvalds displayed a form of agility
that Tannenbaum clearly appears to have lacked. And
that was nothing about the initial idea, but all about
what followed, each decision along the route.

> If anything, the failure of Nupedia shows that Sanger and Wales  
> deserve *more* credit, not less. Rather than giving up on the idea of  
> an online encyclopedia after their first attempt, they persevered,  
> retooled and came up with an alternative approach that did work. Of  
> course they had no way of knowing what a success it would become. They  
> got lucky, and a huge community of other people has contributed in  
> various ways. But they still deserve credit for the original innovation.
>
>  

This brings to mind another point I have been mulling over...

To what extent were Wales and/or Sanger in fact coming
up with an idea out of nothing? And in fact was the idea
ever an "alternative" approach (until it was abundantly
clear that Nupedia would never pan out), rather than a
"complementary" one?

In fact; and I realize I am getting into really bold and
speculative territory here, which might get me into
some trouble here, if people don't realize I am merely
just speculating... how much, if at all, was the
creation of the "scratchpad" influenced by the wildly
more freewheeling "GNUpedia" project of Richard
M. Stallman?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Brian J Mingus
> This is exactly what matters. From what I can tell Sanger wrote much of
> Wikipedia's initialy policy - policy that lives on today in various
> edited
> forms. Not only was he key in coming up with the more formal guidelines
> for
> Nupedia, he personally wrote many of the informal guidelines that came to
> be
> used on Wikipedia. This is well documented on archive.org and Wikipedia
> itself.

[snip]

> It seems clear that this initial idea was authored
> and implemented by Sanger & Wales (2001?). It would be a grave injustice
> to
> just cite Wales (2001) if the idea was only part, or not even, his.

Sanger probably had the initial idea, but Wales listened to him. Wales
paid for the initial operation and supported the project financially for
at least a year, including paying wages to Sanger. Sanger came up with a
lot of policy, but Wales insisted on assume good faith and lived it.
Sanger himself might have torn the project up banning people if given his
way.

Fred Bauder


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: An open letter to Jimmy Wales

Fred Bauder-2
In reply to this post by Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

>
> What would *really* interest me, and what I consider
> to be the seminal moment - even the foundational moment -
> in creating the wikipedia we all know; is when somebody
> made the conceptual breakthrough to the vision of
> wikipedia as something sui generis, and freestanding.
>
> I am betting there were hold-outs fairly long into the
> last days of Nupedia, who still thought it should be
> revivified in some form. I think for anyone who really
> wants to put a face on the founding of wikipedia, it
> would serve well if we revisited that particular period,
> and gave credit to who ever it was that first suggested
> that Wikipedia was *it*, and Nupedia wasn't. If that
> was Larry Sanger, I *do* think he deserves the credit,
> though that would clearly make him an apostate, since
> he has clearly spent much of his time lately arguing that
> no, after all, wikipedia _wasn't_ *it*.
>
> Yours,
>
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen

When I came on in 2002, Nupedia was still alive, had half a dozen
articles, including one in development. Essentially it was dead, but
Sanger had not given up on it. Anything you contributed that was not
approved by an expert in the field was just lost. There was not even a
transparent way to communicate with that expert. See
http://www.starfishandspider.com/index.php?title=Wikipedia for more of my
observations.

What really made Wikipedia was free publicity from Slashdot and The New
York Times during 2001. I don't know if I could find the initial
Slashdoting, but here are the links to the two New York Times articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/20/technology/fact-driven-collegial-this-site-wants-you.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/magazine/the-year-in-ideas-a-to-z-populist-editing.html

So I would say at least some of the credit goes to folks who recognized a
good idea and alerted the rest of the intellectual and internet community
to it.

Fred Bauder


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
1 ... 34567