[flagged]
Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
181–190 of 259 posts
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could also be a typo. Unlikely on QWERTY, but if JdeBP uses Dvorak or especially Workman that's more likely than JdeBP going out of their way to misgender a man with an obscure neopronoun
[flagged]
You’ll give that poster ten thousand dollars if they post they made a typo? Do yuo give money for all typos
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#183[flagged]
He left in 2003 and did start a new wiki
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Cultural Bolshevism wasn't the justification to the mass murder the Nazis committed. The genocide was motivated due to Nazis' own racial theories. Those two are one and the same. Cultural Bolshevism was a Jewish plot in the Nazi world view.
No they aren't the same. Jews, as a race, were seen as subhuman and antisocial, sufficient justifications in Nazi world view to exterminate. Cultural Bolshevism was, at best, an attempt to link anything seen as degenerate to jews to further strengthen persecution of such. Even if Jews weren't a thing, Nazis would still mass murder, hence it was an excuse.
Jews were the evil geniuses behind Bolshevism in the deranged Nazi world view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism
Cultural Bolshevism was seen as the Jewish plot to destroy the West.
It is all the same. To spread "Cultural Marxism" theories is to spread antisemitism.
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people don't realize that essentially all parts of Wikipedia are owned by random nerds versed in the beaurocracy who will revert all outsider edits. Unless you have hours per day dedicated to arguing with them (which they do!), the sign says you're welcome but the people say you're not. Not to say Wikipedia isn't great + useful! But realize that it is owned by a distributed network of feudal nerd-lords that will…
It's amazing how much this behavior is tolerated, despite very clear policies against a single person "owning" a page. > Saying this as a former Wikipedia admin + nerd. Any insight into how these people all manage to dodge the policies against such behavior? Is it just too much effort to complain + favoritism towards frequent editors?
> Is it just too much effort to complain + favoritism towards frequent editors?
They know how to play the game 100x better than you do, and you don't want to waste your time learning to play the game at their level.
There is a Wikipedia rule for everything, and for the opposite of that, if you know the right buzzwords. If a "good guy" writes on a topic he is involved in, that's great, because he is a subject-matter expert; we need more heroes like him. If a "bad guy" writes on a topic he is involved in, that's a conflict of interest, instant revert and ban. You can accuse people of all kinds of bad behaviors, but if anyone does the same to you, you accuse them of not assuming good faith. You need to be very very patient and diplomatic, because if you lose temper even for a moment, you get banned. Shameless lying is perfectly okay if you stay polite and pretend to be too dumb to understand.
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#186[flagged]
Where, specifically, in that tediously long article does it say that Iran won the war? I found one citation of an external source whose title claimed that Iran won, and another claiming that there was "a significant shift in Iran's favor".
And I'm not surprised that the article is locked. If it were open to edit, there would be massive partisan re-writing of it, from all sides (Democratic, Republican, Iranian, Israeli, probably Chinese...)
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and Administrators (and users invoking administrators) will often selectively use rules to pursue editorial purposes. I learned about wikipedia rules before learning about actual law, it's interesting to see exactly how the mechanisms of modern democracy protect against the specific ways in which Wikipedia fails: 1- Separation of powers between rulemakers and judges. In practice many Administrators who have…
> 1- Separation of powers between rulemakers and judges. In practice many Administrators who have the power to enforce rules and bans are actually editing articles themselves! There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Invol... While admins do have the rights to block users or protect pages, many a times, they leave it to other admins to carry out the administrative actions on the users or pages…
And many a time, they'll use mailing lists (even on WP servers, though those mostly are gone now) to coordinate with friendly fellow admins to "take a look at user xyz" and a solid quid pro quo of "and I'll be happy to handle the admin actions you'd like to handle on the pages you like to frequent".
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#188One useful thing to do sometimes when looking at whether or not a user is interested in participating in Wikipedia or just participating in arguing about things is to look at their contributions to actual wikipedia articles, the thing Wikipedia is all about. This is the list of articles Sanger contributed to in 2026: [1] Compare that too all his contributions: [2] Does it seem like this person is participating in Wik…
There are very many admins, even bureaucrats who can and have failed that particular test. I voted 'no', often unsuccessfully, on many admin candidates who had upwards of 70 or 80% of their contributions being in the WP: namespace.
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's amazing how much this behavior is tolerated, despite very clear policies against a single person "owning" a page. > Saying this as a former Wikipedia admin + nerd. Any insight into how these people all manage to dodge the policies against such behavior? Is it just too much effort to complain + favoritism towards frequent editors?
> Is it just too much effort to complain + favoritism towards frequent editors? They know how to play the game 100x better than you do, and you don't want to waste your time learning to play the game at their level. There is a Wikipedia rule for everything, and for the opposite of that, if you know the right buzzwords. If a "good guy" writes on a topic he is involved in, that's great, because he is a subject-matter e…
you have described my experience very accurately
Re: Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You’ll give that poster ten thousand dollars if they post they made a typo? Do yuo give money for all typos
Sounds like a great opportunity to get the original commenter in on the scam. "Psst. Say you indeed made a typo, and I'll split the spoils with ya!"
It wouldn't truly be The Internet without a little bit of Tough Guy Posturing, I suppose. :)