Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 10 April 2009

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 2 days

Archives

Index -index- As of January 16, 2003 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 - late May 2006 May 24 - July 2006 July 2006 - August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 - Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 - December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 - Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 - Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007- Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2-5, 2007 March 5-11, 2007 March 11 - April 3, 2007 April 2 - May 2, 2007 May 3 - June 7, 2007 June 9 - July 4, 2007 July 13 - August 17, 2007 August 17 - September 11, 2007 September 14 - October 7, 2007 October 28 - December 1, 2007 December 2 - December 16, 2007 December 15 - January 4, 2008 January 4 - January 30, 2008 January 30 - February 28, 2008 February 28 - March 11, 2008 March 9 - April 18, 2008 April 18 - May 30, 2008 May 30 - July 27, 2008 July 26 - October 4, 2008 October 4 - November 12, 2008 November 10 - December 10, 2008 December 5 - December 25, 2008 December 25 - January 16, 2009 January 15 - January 27, 2009 January 26 - February 10, 2009 February 8 - March 18, 2009 March 18 - May 6, 2009 May 5 - June 9, 2009 June 10 - July 11, 2009 July 12 - August 29, 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

TERRIBLE THING ABOUT THE WIKIPEDIA LOGO

I recently found out that the Chinese character on the logo of wiki was wrong. As a native Chinese, I know perfectly well that that character should be written as 祖. An additional dot on the globe could be seen. Please correct it right away. Sammy312 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

personally i believe that on the english wikipdia nobody will notice mattman (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several mistakes on the logo, we know all about them and hopefully they will be fixed sooner or later. It's easier said than done, though, unfortunately. --Tango (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In particular, see meta:Talk:Misplaced Pages/Logo#The proposed Chinese character in particular and that page in general for recent discussion. - BanyanTree 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jimmy

How often do you check your Wikia email & how long does it take to reply normally?

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottydotdot (talk • contribs) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I check it daily and I'm on it more or less all the time. Response times can vary widely. At the moment, I have it more or less under control with only 94 pending items, the oldest being December 21st.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick question

Hey Jimbo, or would you rather me call you Jimmy? Anyway, I have a quick question if you have time. What are your thoughts on this proposal? Thanks. Timmeh! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about that, too as it (the debate, not the opinion) has become quite disruptive to a few RfA's. And just FYI, your WP:DEAL statement has been "clarified" as of this diff. Could you update it in your words because as it reads now, it could construed that the conglomeration of opinions written are your intentions of what you currently think of being an administrator and the job description thereof. Thanks so much for your assistance on these matters!--It's me...Sallicio! 21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More on censorship of Fritzl's name on dewiki

I just noticed this discussion on the censorship of Josef Fritzl's name on dewiki, and would like to point out that the entire discussion is based on a false premise. It's NOT a "legal requirement" not to mention Fritzl's name on dewiki. Then all large German language media would be criminals, because Fritzl is named just as extensively in the German language press as in the English. And not only by the Bild-Zeitung, even the (state) Austrian Broadcasting (ORF) mentions his name on thousands (literally) of webpages and claim that "all of Austria and the entire world are asking themselves: Who is Josef Fritzl?". It's also worth to mention that the name of Josef Fritzl returns more Google results than that of the incumbent German Chancellor (and close to a million in German only). Censoring his name, as an extremely well-known person, even after he is convicted (his victims have changed their name anyway), is extremely anti-wiki and comparable to censoring the name of Adolf Hitler. Even other projects (most interwiki links) are censored by the German project (is it permitted to remove valid interwiki links? I consider this to be obstruction of the interwiki system). I have followed the discussion there, and there is actually a consensus to include his name in the article. The censorshop is not a decision by the German community, it is enforced by a few (two or three?) administrators. The German Misplaced Pages doesn't follow the consensus principle. Johnny from Bronx (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, de-wiki works in mysterious ways sometimes. Somehow I doubt they would stop acting like that "just" because Jimbo told them to stop censoring. Yeah, there is no legal reason for censorship (none I know of and I followed both the case and the legal reactions to it) but they can still censor it. Their WP:NOT does not include "not censored", unlike en-wiki's. Although I do think some consistency should be tried and removing valid interwiki links for such reasons should be avoided. Maybe Jimbo and/or the Board should consider the situation and try to clarify de-wiki's handling in this case. After all, censorship can be picked up negatively by the media... SoWhy 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

To my mind the admins involved should be de-sysoped and topic banned. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia must agree not to allow any of its projects to be censored. That is just as an important pillar to any project as its free licensing it. I notice dewikinews refers to him as 'Josef F.'. Should this discussion be moved to meta? Computerjoe's talk 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message on the German Misplaced Pages's embassy inviting them to comment here. Computerjoe's talk 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec; I am not very active on de) Some people are being ridiculous. The last name of the criminal in question is not being named on de because it happens to be also the last name (at least birth name) of his daughter, his five surviving children with her, and his six other children with his wife. These are all victims. I don't even want to think about what life must be like now for his children. The principle that the privacy of the victims of crime must be respected is recognised to a certain extent even here, see WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy:

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced.

This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Misplaced Pages editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Here is the corresponding passage from de:WP:BLP#Straftaten, in translation:

"Victims of crimes and criminals also have personality rights. Therefore the names of victims and criminals in contemporary criminal cases, which became known through the concrete criminal case, should only be completed in Misplaced Pages if these persons have become known under their name to the general public with lasting effect, e.g. through book publications, or (other than through the course of events of the crime and the criminal proceedings) have appeared in public voluntarily, e.g. in talk shows. This prevents, for example, that in case of the abduction of a girl the victim types in her name in Google after a number of years and finds a Misplaced Pages article 'Abduction of XY ... The perpetrator was convicted for repeated sexual abuse'."

AFAIK none of the victims in this case is seeking the public, and IMO de is handling this correctly even though in this particular case it's unlikely to make a difference. Using the word "censorship" in this context, as some people do, is ridiculous because knowing the last name of the family, while interesting to the public, is not in the public interest. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the point in having the page in the first place if the one key phrase isnt included in the article once? Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia after all. Seddσn 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

They have a redirect from de:Josef F.. This is a standard way of referring to such criminal cases in German-language media. Currently there are 10x more Google hits in German for "Josef Fritzl" than for "Josef F.", which isn't a dramatic difference. Several major German and Austrian magazines and newspapers such as Der Standard, Spiegel, Focus use "Josef F." consistently, while others such as Die Zeit and the national TV chains ORF and ZDF alternate between the two uses. I would say among the most reputable sources in German there is no clear preference for either of the two versions.

I am not saying the decision at de is right; I am saying that it is sufficiently reasonable that it makes no sense to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man in order to fight against it. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps we should! If his name is available in many reliable sources, as are the names of his victim, I personally see no reason it isn't included. I suppose this is a matter for them, not us, though. Computerjoe's talk 09:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a matter for us, though, is how they remove valid interwiki links and even create useless redirects at other projects (including fr and it) in order to circumvent the correct interwikis and effectively censor other Wikimedia projects. Such behaviour should not be tolerated, the interwikis should not be tampered with or censored. This could create a dangerous precedent if the German Misplaced Pages is allowed to do so (other projects likely to have issues with freedom of speech could be the Chinese one, what if they wanted to behave in the same way, should other projects assist their censorship?) Johnny from Bronx (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. If ease to reuse is a concern under Austrian/German law, goodness knows the remafications it could have on the Chinese Misplaced Pages. What makes me uncomfortable is that we're discussing the actions of another wiki on this one, when in my opinion the appropiate place would be meta as that appears to be a more neutral forum. Should we move this discussion to meta:Wikimedia Forum? Computerjoe's talk 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Made a discussion at meta. Computerjoe's talk 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikia message!

Hi. You have a new message on Wikia! Carabera (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Wouldn't it make sense to protect this userpage? Look at the amount of reverts in the page history - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs | Email 06:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly for a short time. Normally I'd say no way, people need to be able to contact jimbo but the edit warring needs to stop. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Can't people use the talk page, or email him to contact him?. I think maybe a couple of weeks of protection would do... - Nz26 | Talk | Contribs | Email 08:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is his talk page! And email isn't a good forum for group discussion. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If it were to be semi-protected, a sub page for IP editors to contact him would have to be set up. Totally unacceptable without it. DuncanHill (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanger's open letter

In light of this, perhaps it would be best to move the discussion to some other page (perhaps in the Misplaced Pages: namespace)? On the other hand, I would really like to hear from Jimbo about this matter; I have no idea why he seems so fixated on denying Larry's role as co-founder. – Thomas H. Larsen 07:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not fixated on it at all, thank you. Indeed, lots of people seem to want me to talk about it, but I'm not interested. I am being portrayed by some as believing things that I do not, and holding positions that I do not. As I have said many times, I think the entire "controversy" is silly and that Mr. Sanger is too often given too little credit for his work. (Note well that it is well known, though, that Tim Shell was the person who invented the notion of talk pages. Anyone else claiming credit for that now should be pushed hard.) There are a thousand other inventions by a hundred other lesser known early contributors, and a debate about semantics seems a bit absurd to me. Larry didn't make Misplaced Pages, and neither did I. It was made by the community, and lots of people played interesting roles.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(n.b., writing as a journalist here) Jimmy, I know you don't like me posting on your talk page, and while I have tried to respect your wishes, protecting myself against being sued for libel for my _Guardian_ columns must take priority. Can you please confirm the alleged quotes in the alleged IRC transcript where you allegedly state "((jwales)) Misplaced Pages has a sole founder ((jwales)) and a disgruntled former employee building himself a nice career on this lie."? There is also an alleged quote on another page "((jwales)) it is somewhat a matter of semantics, he could be co-founder of wikipedia *and* an employee". I'm aware the site is no booster of Misplaced Pages, hence my checking. Note Jonathan Zittrain discusses the IRC chat in his book ("In one extraordinary chat room conversation of Wikipedians recorded online, Wales himself laments that Larry Sanger is billed in several Misplaced Pages articles about Misplaced Pages as a "co-founder" of the encyclopedia."). So don't accuse me of trolling for referring to it. But he's a prestigious Harvard/Oxford professor, so he doesn't have to worry so much about legal threat bluster. If you recall, I did email you about the material a while back, and to be extremely charitable, your answer was not at all clear. (editorial note to other readers - please don't remove this - if Jimbo does it, that establishes at least I did due diligence, which would cut against any casual legal threat. And if other people appearing in that IRC chat can authenticate it, please let me know, email sethf-at-sethf.com, thanks). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's amazing, Seth, that you are here as a journalist when you have such an extraordinary bias against Misplaced Pages and your checkered history with Jimmy Wales as to render your ethics in writing about this as nil. It's better to say you are here as a columnist. You have no foundation to practice journalism on this issue. --David Shankbone 13:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And Seth, when you do write a piece of "journalism" about this, I would like to interview you about your ethics as a journalist. You can choose not to answer the questions, which will be via e-mail, but at least I am now establishing that at I did due diligence, which would cut against any casual legal threat. It would be particularly interesting as I have planned to interview a high-profile faculty member of the Columbia School of Journalism about some of the things I discovered in my interviews, and I'd like to make whatever "journalistic" story you do here a topic in that interview, along with your background, and comments you've made about Wales both publicly and privately. --David Shankbone 14:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your first mistake is not taking into account that I write for a UK publication, and UK journalism follows different conventions than US journalism (in particular, UK journalism is not so heavily constrained to parrot lies from the powerful, unchallenged). I think it reasonable that your response to this error be a little test of your own ethics. But can we take this elsewhere? I'm seriously concerned with legal risks and accurate sourcing, and you are arguably baiting and making personal attacks. -- 14:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Finkelstein (talk • contribs)

@Seth - I haven't made any mistakes, because I haven't seen what you expect to do, and I haven't done or written anything myself. There are all sorts of mistakes both you and I could make in writing about this; no point in exploring them all when nothing has transpired. I certainly plan to look at different codes of journalistic ethics, but it is completely valid to focus on whether you and The Guardian, by American standards, adhered to ethical principles in publishing whatever it is you publish. And whose to say this faculty member is American, or has only practiced journalism in America? To be even-handed, I'd also approach The Guardian for comment. --David Shankbone 15:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

try not to be so curmudgeonly, DS - doesn't suit you! Your ad hominem is reasonably well written, and has a bit of zing, but overall comes across as a bit too grumpy. cheer up! Privatemusings (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)with apologies to Seth and Jimbo for confuddling things

This "controversy" is not about who founded Misplaced Pages, but about your persistent attempts to misrepresent the facts of history (and get others to misrepresent it for you). It is not some trivial trifle, but cuts to the very heart of what Misplaced Pages is supposedly about-presenting the "facts" in an objective manner. Facts can be stubborn things...we may not always like or agree with them, but in order to be rational beings we must ultimately yield to them. Here is an important fact pertaining to this issue

Larry Sanger lsanger@nupedia.com Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:50:32 -0800 Previous message: Library and Information Science is active! Next message: Let's make a wiki
"No, this is not an indecent proposal. It's an idea to add a little feature to Nupedia. Jimmy Wales thinks that many people might find the idea objectionable, but I think not.

"Wiki," pronounced \wee'-kee\, derives from a Polynesian word, "wikiwiki," but what it means is a VERY open, VERY publicly-editable series of web pages. For example, I can start a page called EpistemicCircularity and write anything I want in it. Anyone else (yes, absolutely anyone else) can come along and make absolutely any changes to it that he wants to. (The editing interface is very simple; anyone intelligent enough to write or edit a Nupedia article will be able to figure it out without any trouble.) On the page I create, I can link to any other pages, and of course anyone can link to mine. The project is billed and pursued as a public resource. There are a few announced suggestions or rules. The concept actually seems to work well, as you can see here with the original wiki:

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki

Links are indicated by using CapitalizedWordsBunchedTogetherLikeThis. If a wiki page exists, the word is underlined; if not, there is a question mark after the word, which is clickable, and which anyone can use to go and write something about the topic.

Setting up a wiki for Nupedia would be very easy; it can be done in literally ten minutes. (We've already found this out.)

As to Nupedia's use of a wiki, this is the ULTIMATE "open" and simple format for developing content. We have occasionally bandied about ideas for simpler, more open projects to either replace or supplement Nupedia. It seems to me wikis can be implemented practically instantly, need very little maintenance, and in general are very low-risk. They're also a potentially great source for content. So there's little downside, as far as I can see. We can make wiki versions of all new Nupedia articles, too, and that can be a place where additional changes and commentary can be gleaned (authors could ignore what goes on on the wiki, of course--it's up to them). The content can be licensed under an open content license.

A Nupedia wiki would instruct users to try to make their entries resemble encyclopedia articles, but the usual wiki sort of banter would be permitted. This would make things more interesting to many users, who could *instantly* create, edit, and comment on articles. If a wiki article got to a high level it could be put into the regular Nupedia editorial process.

We would not integrate the Nupedia wiki into the rest of Nupedia (though wiki pages could link to regular Nupedia pages, there wouldn't be links back). It would be a completely separate part of the website. The search engine would not return wiki pages, and wiki pages wouldn't be listed among other regular Nupedia pages. We'd just have a link on the left or right hand column of the website, "Nupedia Wiki", and let people explore it if they're curious what it is. On the front page of the Nupedia wiki we'd make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this is experimental, that Nupedia editors don't have control of what goes on here, and that the quality of articles, discussion, etc., should not be taken as a reflection of the quality of articles, review, etc. on the main part of the Nupedia website.

Does anyone have an objection to our trying this out?

Larry"

What it shows us is that not only did you not originate the idea of using a Wiki for an encyclopedia, you actually thought it wasn't a good idea initially. So judging by the above fact, unless one buys into your whole "I was his boss at the time, hence everything he created then is mine!" argument (which has some validity...legally, if not morally) then even your claim to be co-founder is tenuous at best. However, the facts also show you can take undisputed credit as the sole founder of one very important aspect of Misplaced Pages; its ruling cabal. So while you did not come up with the idea for a free, wiki-based encyclopedia anyone can edit, you did conceive of a shadowy mysterious elite group to control it. All for the best of reasons in the beginning of course; to fight vandalism and un-encyclopedic behavior, but ultimately becoming an instrument to maintain your power. These are the simple facts and the WikiTruth, Mr. Wales, not trolling. Perhaps it constitutes original research, but it is not in article space. Remember; it is not necessarily the victors, founders or employers who end up writing the history...it is the survivors. Remember too what former Wikimedia Foundation Chair Florence Devouard once said "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past, Get a grip!" Perhaps we should all get a grip...but then again we are not all claiming to be sole founder of a major interweb phenomenon. Maybe it would help if you tried practicing some of that good faith and generosity you keep preaching about, towards a good and highly intelligent man who was once your colleague and friend. Lead by example, Mr. Wales, not by deception!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So.... in 1999 Wales came up with the idea of a free online encyclopedia (Nupedia) and then in 2000 hired someone as an editor. So, presumably, no-one's claiming to be 'co-founder' of Nupedia? Because that would be ridiculous. So then the founder of Nupedia wanted to let everyone dip in and contribute to a new version of Nupedia, and someone suggested using an easy Content Management System developed back in 1994. Sanger refers to it as "Nupedia Wiki", so presumably it was the same old 'free online encyclopedia' idea, but one to which anyone could contribute using a simple WYSIWYG interface. Sanger was still a paid employee, Wales was still the boss, so there wasn't any parity between them that could lead to them being described as 'co-founders'. Sure, as a generously-minded boss he let his employees share some of the credit, but at the end of the day only one person had the idea to drive forward an online 💕 - and that was Wales. QED. Little grape (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Give it up already, people

I don't normally like controversial things like this, but this discussion is inane. I wrote a long comment about it, but deleted it, because it won't make the point (tl;dr). Here's a short list of obvious statements.

1. Jimbo said "Larry didn't make Misplaced Pages, and neither did I. It was made by the community, and lots of people played interesting roles."
2. The word "founder" is misleading; no one ever said "I'm going to start an encyclopedia anyone can edit tomorrow, and it's going to be awesome"
3. Larry Sanger did a lot of great work and brought the fledgling project to life, but he left (and called us "irreparably broken" or some such)
4. People not active in a project tend to get ignored by the media
5. The community has done the huge majority of the work that has made Misplaced Pages a continuing success

What I think Jimbo should do is acknowledge the failings of the word "founder", and I think others should give up the nonsense that is this discussion. What does Larry Sanger stand to gain from this, in practical terms? Will people notice him more after the story of his open letter fades? Will he get interviewed by the media as a big-shot "co-founder"? I doubt this. Fairly, Jimbo shouldn't ever use or have used the phrase "sole founder", but it's equally fair to say that this open letter won't accomplish much in the longer run. If Larry Sanger really wants credit as one of the originators of Misplaced Pages, he's free to eat his words and come back to the project he once helped nurture—other methods will ultimately be ignored by most, no matter how justified. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem, "Nihiltres," with both your post and Jimmy Wales', above, is that they don't actually respond to the open letter itself. I'm not asking for closure on the "co-founder" issue. Jimmy and I will never agree about that. I want Jimmy held to account for his provably false and self-serving statements about my involvement in Misplaced Pages. That's very different. But even the issue of Jimmy's mendacity includes the co-founder issue--because among the things Jimmy has lied about is precisely that issue. He did approve all three press releases, he was a press contact for all three, he did call himself a co-founder in 2002, he did not complain about my epithet from 2001 through 2004, and I did not "just put self down as co-founder" in the 2003 and 2004 press releases (as he told Hot Press), since I was long gone. What I demand is that Jimmy Wales be held responsible for playing fast and loose with the truth, at my expense, and then, as in his comment above, lamely ducking responsibility for his own claims. If you want to reply to the letter, Jimmy, read it and reply to a few of the most salient details. Of course you won't, because you can't. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that Jimbo does nowadays get referred to as the founder and Sanger only ever as co-founder. One is left with the suspicion that if there is self-serving about the co-founder issue helped in the promotion of Citizendium. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Giano was just blocked today for repeatedly calling another user a liar. Larry, would you please stand down with the personal attacks and ad homeinem remarks. Whether you or Jimmy is right or wrong really isn't to be debated here, on Misplaced Pages. If you'd like to debate it in real life, I'd be happy to arrange a venue at one of the conferences that I help program. Cheers, Jehochman 19:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, Giano provided evidence to back his claim of falsehoods being made; so WP:V appears to be no defence either. What changed, and why did no-one wake me? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Larry, when you say, "What I demand is that Jimmy Wales be held responsible" I am curious about what you feel that entails, and by whom he would be held responsible. --David Shankbone 19:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He needs to be held responsible by all of us. Rank-and-file Wikipedians can speak out when they see remarks on Misplaced Pages.org and elsewhere that are provably false. Members of the media can ask him to explain the lack of fit between his claims and items in the archives. The Wikimedia Foundation can underscore its support for the contents of its first press release, and remove Jimmy Wales from the Board for misusing his role as a spokesman for the organization. How's that for starters? --Larry Sanger (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Jimmy Wales article is pretty solidly sourced now with the co-founder status. This section is relevant reading. rootology (C)(T) 20:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• @Larry - If your version is accurate and true, and there are multiple people from the early days to back it up, then why is it that you think the Foundation has not, or will not, remove him? --David Shankbone 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Are you asking me or Larry? I don't have any stake or real interest in the feud or whatever it is that is happening here, and the WMF can name Jimmy, you or I "Founder" or "Dark Lord of the Sith" for all I care. When I saw this has spilled into article space, I got annoyed, since we don't do anyone any favors in the face of NPOV, be they Jimmy, Larry, you, me, a head of state, or the head of a religion. rootology (C)(T) 21:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• @Rootology - The question was directed at Larry. --David Shankbone 22:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for my misconstruction of your desire, Larry. I don't have anything against holding Jimbo to the truth, which I acknowledge (and I've already expressed my view on the whole "founder" issue). What I am against is pointless disruption of Misplaced Pages, and this discussion effects that. Kindly find a better venue for this offwiki. I'm sure there are plenty of fora in which you can publicize this. By the way, please don't put my name in scare quotes—would you prefer I did the same to you, "Larry"? :/ {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of last night's South Park episode. Fish sticks anyone? --B (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)