161–170 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Why_I_am_n... Still there after 23 years.
Well this one was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Ordinary_Leg... And this one is now pending deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Editorial_pa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple. He broke this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing This is fairly straightforward, with the result (blocked from editing) mentioned clearly. It doesn't matter the topic. Being a cofounder is immaterial.
The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that.
If there is a decision to be made on Wikipedia, the decision is made by reaching a consensus among Wikipedia users using discussions. You’re not allowed to bring in other people that might share your view but that might not even be Wikipedia users and have them argue your position for you. You’re not even allowed to selectively advertise the discussion among Wikipedia users to bias the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope. * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Why_I_am_n... Still there after 23 years.
Well this one was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Ordinary_Leg... And this one is now pending deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Editorial_pa...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1359185792
And the second is being discussed, with at minimum 3 more days of discussion to go. It isn't pending anything yet. It only becomes pending deletion when the outcome of the discussion is a consensus to delete. Indeed, the discussion so far has a fair number of people arguing that it should not be deleted.
So still nope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that.
The rule is: If there is a decision to be made on Wikipedia, the decision is made by reaching a consensus among Wikipedia users using discussions. You’re not allowed to bring in other people that might share your view but that might not even be Wikipedia users and have them argue your position for you. You’re not even allowed to selectively advertise the discussion among Wikipedia users to bias the discussion.
What is this supposed to mean?
There is a long history here, and if you are looking at just the WikiProject and the community ban discussion, you are missing a Hell of a lot. Very short background: Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2003. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/707321 Sanger went on to set up Citizendium, a wiki encyclopaedia project organized the way that xe thought one should be organized, with an extensive rulebase and 'consta…
Maybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Larry Sanger is very clearly a man and has never expressed any desire to be treated differently than that. JdeBP is misgendering him on purpose, which is a very serious offense and even illegal in many parts of the world. We'll see if this is allowed to stay here.
From my understanding, `xe` is a gender-neutral pronoun, no different than using "they".
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...
A democracy can vote that pi=4.
This is not a very useful property for an encyclopedia, so you're going to need a different system for determining outcomes.
Preferably you need a method that is somehow still somewhat fair. And that's how we get to the concept of rough consensus. It's absolutely not perfect, and it's not meant to be, because nothing is. Improvements welcome.
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…
Yes, banned by the status quo for trying to disturb it. Wikipedia is nowadays highly politicized and more time and energy are spent on politics than on actually contributing with any useful knowledge. I've stopped contributing years ago after a decade of writing because of how bad things had gotten. It's a lost battle, all that remains is scorched earth filled with toxic editors trying to push their POV and banning e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having a labyrinth of rules to follow and then applying them asymmetrically is a classic way to build power for the ingroup and exile outsiders. The ingroup knows the rules well enough that they can wait until an enemy crosses one of the rules, then they have an excuse to punish them. The more rules on the books, the more opportunities to use them against your enemies. When someone inside breaks the rules, it’s treat…
You can build your own wikipedia.
There is a long history here, and if you are looking at just the WikiProject and the community ban discussion, you are missing a Hell of a lot. Very short background: Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2003. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/707321 Sanger went on to set up Citizendium, a wiki encyclopaedia project organized the way that xe thought one should be organized, with an extensive rulebase and 'consta…
Maybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.