Talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 1

message: Since I just nominated Tim Shell for AFD, I was asked on IRC if I felt Larry notable. I do. Mostly because he's notable outside of wikipedia. And, he started it with Jimbo. He has to be somewhere near as notable as Jimbo. However, since Larry was involved with Wikipedia, I feel there is a strong likelihood that this article contains a lot of original research. There are no sources referenced. Please find some refernecse for this article. :) --Phroziac(talk) 01:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability and sources

message: This Technology Reviewarticle mentions that Larry is involved in a new encyclopedia project. I've always been interested on Larry's views about Wikipedia, so it would be cool to find ou t what this project is. Maybe it should also be mentioned in this article. Pcb21 Pete 09:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.digitaluniverse.net I think, see  Aldie 13:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: In 2005 his involvement in a new encyclopedia project, Digital Universe, was revealed. To be launched in early 2006, this project plans to bring in recognized experts to certify the accuracy of user-submitted articles as well as to write articles themselves.
is only slightly misleading, because the Digital Universe is not just an encyclopedia project.  It's big and complicated to explain, and various press releases and stuff will explain it over the coming weeks and months.  We're going to start a blog soon, too, to make sure some more accurate info comes out.  :-) --Larry Sanger 00:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New encyclopedia project for Larry?

message: I wouldn't want to edit my article after certain recent events, but I should let you know that I left OSU in June, and since then I have been employed full-time working on behalf of the Digital Universe Foundation. --Larry Sanger 00:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer at OSU 

message: Just read an article about WP in the Village Voice. It seemed like a good opportunity to quote a source outside the WP community on this issue. IronDuke 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay... I'm open to suggestion. IronDuke 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK: read many credible sources carefully, then summarize them intelligently.  Also, find a more descriptive title than "controversy." --Larry Sanger 20:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, Larry, I’m giving it a whirl, although with some trepidation. The reason I just dumped a graf from some other source into the article like that is that this issue is rather delicate, and I don’t want to appear to be taking anyone’s side and therefore did not want to summarize the issues myself. I was hesitant to contribute to this page at all, knowing that it was likely being watched by a lot of people with a lot of contradictory views, and that many of these people could easily ban me if they perceived me to be “siding” with someone in this debate. So let me say this: I had nothing to do with the founding of Nupedia or Wikipedia, and do not know Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales, or Jeremy Rosenfeld (although it is quite possible, for reasons I can elaborate later, that I have met one of the above parties and just don’t remember it). Let me also state for the record that I have no desire to get at the “truth” of what happened, because I do not have and can never really have any way of knowing this. It is possible, in that Wales and Sanger appear to disagree over Wikipedia’s origins, that they are both lying, that only one of them is lying, or that one or both are honestly misremembering what transpired, or (perhaps most likely) that they are both in some way “right,” but choosing to emphasize different elements of the story. IronDuke 01:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I read on Larry's userpage that he discourages wiki-anarchists; what in the world is a wiki-anarchist? Canaen 03:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki-Anarchists? 

message: Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the fact that I am now (as part of my DU duties) Director of the Text Outline Project; see http://www.textop.org/ --Larry Sanger 03:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textop 

message: Banned user Amorrow is editing this article. I'm going to revert all his edits. I sprotected the article for now. --FloNight talk 14:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So? There wasn't anything wrong with the edits themselves. I note that you've also removed the POV tag and a few good style edits. What's the justification for removing all this positive work? Chris Cunningham 16:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Cunningham, If you look in the history you will see a reply placed here by Amorrow. If you read it you may understand the reason that he is no longer welcome to edit Wikipedia articles. Jimbo stated that Amorrow's edits should be removed on sight. Period. This is widely supported by the community. If you want to improve the article by adding or removing content, go right ahead. Be careful to follow copyright law. FloNight talk 19:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just saw it. While I respect the desire to keep people who make things personal out of the community, every change made here was legitimate. I'm reverting to the pre-moderated version, and I'm going to try to cherry-pick the best bits of the now-reverted History of Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned user Amorrow

message: I'm disinclined to go running around after moderators reading up on past disputes, but from what I've seen the "revert on sight" edict is meant for destuctive edits. If this isn't correct, whatever, but my own edits (including what was a needed POV tag at the time) have been caught up in an overzealous revert job (the revert in question appears to go all the way back to 65866405). I'd like it made clear exactly which edits to this article were unwanted and to have only those changes reverted, please. Chris Cunningham 20:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any part of your changes that I agree with. Maybe there was something minor that was okay but, again, I didn't see it. IronDuke 20:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you didn't look at the history. here's a link to the changes I made myself. Chris Cunningham 20:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: One of us is confused (and I'm willing to accept it may be me). The version I reverted was not the current article, it was this. IronDuke 21:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Cunningham, I apologize if I did not make myself clear to you before. All of this banned users edits are to be removed on sight. You can add back your edits including the pov tag. You can not revert to a version of the article that includes Amorrow's edits. FloNight talk 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem. Thanks. Chris Cunningham 20:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. ; - ) FloNight talk 20:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Larry : - ) The article was recently edited by a banned user. It has been reverted multiple times likely making it a poor read. Unless someelse has already fixed it, in the morning I'll look at your sources and rewrite it accordingly. --FloNight talk 04:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, what service! --Larry Sanger 05:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current revert farce 

message: The subject of the article has requested that the article be updated and several sections be rewritten. I am going to update the article and make other changes as needed. Help from other editors is encouraged. If there is disagreement about the wording, we need to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page. Please discuss instead of reverting. FloNight talk 02:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes made since the 26/07 edit were stylistic only; it's blatantly obvious from the diff. Chris Cunningham 03:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not revert without discussion and consensus