:I agree with the bulk of Dr. Blofeld's comment; however, I do appreciate Sanger's "dream" of trying a different approach.  Nupedia was once just a dream too, but through brilliant css and various markup language (and editors contributions) - wikipedia has moved to the top of search results in so many search terms.  I do agree with the perception (of non-editors) that wikipedia is written by vandals, children, or ill-informed people.  I just started editing, and it has been a real eye-opener for me.  There do seem to be a lot of battleground and bureaucratic tactics that go in to the end result; but, I've actually found the end result to be a very informative resource to start a research project. 

 :Getting back to the Sanger article at hand.  I've noticed that multiple editors have come and gone in an effort to improve the quality of this particular BLP.  It appears to me that a minority of editors are able to impose their will through reverts and sarcastic comments in an effort to maintain a particular bias against wikipedia.  Going beyond the obvious "bite the hand that feeds you" mindset, it's almost as if the article wants to throw a "Here's what people are saying is wrong with wikipedia" article in the face of the readers.  I completely understand that a Sanger article may extol the virtues of Citizendium (and that's fine), but there are so many out of context quotes, and para-phrases, and essays posted here that it (the article) seems to lose focus on the effort to provide a biography of an individual.  First: I would think that a whole Citizendium v. Wikipedia section would have to come across as comparing apples to oranges crab-apples.  Second: If one were to attempt such a comparison, it would belong in a Citizendium or Wikipedia article, NOT a BLP.  Note: I have no problem with Sanger personal reflections, they pertain to him, and DO belong - I object to the parts of OP-ED pieces that mis-quote actual Wikipedia policy, (in a poor man's attempt to gather notability) being presented in a fact-like manner to mislead the reader into believing skewed or false information.  At best, I think (after reading policy and guidelines) that the bulk of the bottom half of this article (including the links to essays and presentations) would belong over at the criticisms of wikipedia article, and removed from here.