Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #110

Sweepi wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You cut out the context, making it look like he was trying to bias the website. The part you left out was that he was asked by the interviewer how Indians who felt the site was biased against them could fight the bias: > When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded: So he’s saying that a group can combat bias on the site by participating in th…

Post by MichaelZuo » Thu, Jun 25, 2026, 11:52 PM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #243

MichaelZuo wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you reply to the correct comment? This doesnt seem to address my comment?

Can you clarify how your comment addressed the one it replied to? Yours was a bit non-sequitur, so perhaps I misinterpreted the implication.

Post by MichaelZuo » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 3:38 AM UTC

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #245

MichaelZuo wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you not see the last sentence? It’s literally directly addressing the last sentence of the parent: “So he claimed to be doing one thing, but in reality it was more of a thinly disguised power play by the look of it.”

Yeah, but that seems to ignore GP's whole post save for the last paragraph. The community discussion was around what he actually did wrong (which my post mentioned 1 example of). The bad ulterior motives may help explain the bad behavior, but the behavior is bad in and of itself. That's why I thought there was a misunderstanding when your post totally ignored the behavior.

Post by alextingle » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 7:03 AM UTC

dotancohen wrote: post #222

peppersghost93 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>he was advocating for removing the blacklist. Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. If he got his way the website would quickly be overrun with right wing misinformation campaigns. I hope he stays banned.

For many topics Wikipedia is well known to be overrun with left wing campaigns - LGBT, and US political topics chief among them. I'd rather see neither side successfully oust the other. But it seems that the left got there first and is entrenched.

Post by ImPostingOnHN » Fri, Jun 26, 2026, 7:04 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #249

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you interested in discussing the actual behavior this person engaged in, which is the subject of both the article and this thread?

Are you confused? You replied to me initially, I didn’t seek out one of your comments to reply to. And you still haven’t explained why you answered a comment believed to be a non-sequitor… with your own non-sequitor. Which still makes no sense. If you don’t want to answer any of the questions so far, you are free to leave.