Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 259 posts

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#71

Post by vrganj »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #55
vrganj wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not implying you're a Nazi, but I am pointing out the historical heritage of this line of argument. We've been here before, this exact same conspiracy theory was created by the Nazis to justify the unjustifiable. The slight rebranding of "Cultural B̶o̶l̶s̶h̶e̶v̶i̶s̶m̶ Marxism " is what Anders Breivik used to justify his acts of terrorism. We've gone done this road before. It doesn't lead anywhere good. I'm not pu…

I see. But there's pages about other aspects of Marxist theory some of which I'm sure was used to excuse crimes against humanity by the Nazis and other evil doers. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Marxism In general Wikipedia takes an anti censorship approach regarding articles which can cause evil. So why is the aspect of Marxism which deals with culture completely taboo and not represented? I'm not e…

I think the article about the conspiracy theory you linked addresses your concerns quite well, it talks about what the Frankfurt school was actually about and the way the far right has been twisting it to support the narrative that has led to so many dead.

I'm not sure why you were so opposed to said article, I read it and it seems to lay everything out pretty well, including full sourcing. Could you tell me what exactly you take issue with?

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#72

Post by rozab »

Sweepi wrote: post #44
wongarsu wrote: post #31

So to summarize: he resuggested "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", a group with the goal to make "Wikipedia more intellectually diverse" and "ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability", etc, with the implied undertone of preventing Wiki…

Well there is a lot more, e.g.: After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than the…

I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#73

Post by altilunium »

postflopclarity wrote: post #7

trying to contribute to wikipedia was the most miserable experience in a "collaborative" process I've ever had in my life. Like arguing with cranks at a town hall meeting, ignorant high school group project classmates, and bureaucracy-obsessed nonprofit initiative zealots all wrapped into one. in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't…

I hope anyone can start their own private wiki in peace and for free.

Today, we already have free blogging platforms, newsletters, photo sharing, and microblogging, but we are in dire need of a free wiki platform (and maybe a knowledge base tool too).

I'm currently experimenting with building exactly that. So far, so good, but the setup is still too difficult for non-technical people, even though it is already free to register.

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#74

Post by xacky »

Heidaradar wrote: post #5
xacky wrote: post #2

This is now the end of Wikipedia for me, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the admins try to split the wiki into endless forks.

did you read the reason why he was blocked? I can't say who's right or wrong but their reasons for blocking him seem to be valid in nature.

I've been following Wikipedia almost since it began, the stated reason is not matching the actual reason, They've wanted Larry Gone for years, even Jimmy will very be betrayed eventually. Unfortunately the real aftermath won't be known until many more get banned.

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#75

Post by coldpie »

herodoturtle wrote: post #21

There is a link in the other comments that is intended to explain the context, but as someone who isn't familiar with the structure of threads / conversations in the Wikipedia editing community, I am honestly struggling to follow it. Can someone here please help me understand what the issue is? (I keep seeing stuff in that linked article about canvassing and "the left marching through institutions" but again I'm not…

Guy wanted to loosen rules around Wikipedia's sourcing to allow places like Breitbart and Fox News to be used as reliable sources (they are obviously not). Things were not going his way in the vote, so he asked his large social network following to brigade the vote in his favor. That's not allowed, so he's been banned.

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#76

Post by Sweepi »

altilunium wrote: post #69
chollida1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then he made a tweet that basically just says "I suggested this, some people like it, some hate it". That's super against the rules, because it attracts people to the proposal who otherwise wouldn't have seen it. How would this in any way be against the rules? Wouldn'tan open and democratic process like wikipedia want as many eyes as possible on a vote or rule change? That sounds completely backwards from the o…

The Wikipedia community proudly states that they're not a democracy [1]. I don't even know how that works. People simply think their opinion is the best one while hiding behind statements like, "This is THE consensus, you can't do anything about it. Oh, Wikipedia IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, so your pathetic voting attempt has literally no power here." [1] : https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:IS_NOT_A_DEMOCRACY...

Why not quote the rule, if it is so offending?:

  Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting. (Voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee.) Straw polls are sometimes used to test for consensus, but polls or surveys can impede, rather than foster, discussion and should be used with caution.

  Off-site petitions and votes have no weight in the formation of consensus on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_no...

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#77

Post by projektfu »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #18
vrganj wrote: post #12

[flagged]

If there's one article that shows the problem with Wikipedia it's the one you're quoting and it's sister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th... which says that cultural marxism is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. And then you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School and leave confused... Edit: for example, here's a passage from the wiki page on frankfurt school. Adorno and Horkhe…

It is a difference, perhaps, between Marxist cultural studies, and "Cultural Marxism", a label applied by antagonists to a large variety of activities?

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#78

Post by mzajc »

I encourage people to read through his proposed WikiProject's page[0] and the related discussion.[1] Important context is also that WikiProjects are exempt from canvassing rules; members are free to notify each other of ongoing policy discussions with the goal of influencing the outcome.

This is usually not a problem, but given how aggressively vague the WikiProject's goals are (eg. "We hope to open Wikipedia up to using more sources" - which?) and Larry Sanger's prior conduct (eg. advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News[2]), it seems the real goal was organizing conservative editors. I'm not sure whether the fact that this is not clearly written is deception or trolling, but it's not a good look for Sanger either way.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_...

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cou...

[2]: https://san.com/cc/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-has-libera...

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#79

Post by wongarsu »

wongarsu wrote: post #31

So to summarize: he resuggested "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", a group with the goal to make "Wikipedia more intellectually diverse" and "ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability", etc, with the implied undertone of preventing Wiki…

An interesting procedural detail is how an admin decided to just close the discussion and ban the user before the mandatory discussion period was over, and got a lot of pushback for the sloppy decision making process. This was overturned, only for another admin to reach the same conclusion seven hours later, after the discussion was online for the mandatory 72 hours (with no consideration for the two hours between the wrongful decision and the reversal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...

Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

#80

Post by lanyard-textile »

chollida1 wrote: post #48
wongarsu wrote: post #31

So to summarize: he resuggested "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", a group with the goal to make "Wikipedia more intellectually diverse" and "ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability", etc, with the implied undertone of preventing Wiki…

> But then he made a tweet that basically just says "I suggested this, some people like it, some hate it". That's super against the rules, because it attracts people to the proposal who otherwise wouldn't have seen it. How would this in any way be against the rules? Wouldn'tan open and democratic process like wikipedia want as many eyes as possible on a vote or rule change? That sounds completely backwards from the o…

Remember that the editors of wikipedia do not owe us anything. Time is a gift, and they give theirs to us in great abundance.

It's perfectly acceptable for them to charter their own rules and keep these kinds of matters internal until they agree it's best, for their goals, to involve the public.

Frankly, they strive to be some of the greatest practitioners on neutrality. This is not the kind of organization that needs the kind of public correction you are wondering about.

And if it was, I think we can all understand why modern day Twitter is the wrong place to exclusively inspire that discussion.

Post reply on HN