Wikipediocracy's enduring obsession with Larry Sanger

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jake Is A Sellout
Sucks Fan
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2021 1:01 am
Been thanked: 31 times

Wikipediocracy's enduring obsession with Larry Sanger

Post by Jake Is A Sellout » Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:13 am

What's that all about?

If you find his Tweets on subjects that have little to nothing to do Wikipedia to be a little wierd, here's an idea, just ignore them?

If you think attacking him in you forum as a crazy fool somehow hurts Wikipedia because he was its "co-founder", that only opens you up for mockery and abuse, for three reasons.....

1. For the longest time there, and just because it annoyed your nemesis Jimmy Wales, you absolutely adored the Sanger. Couldn't pass up a single opportunity to hang on the every word of the "co-founder". Quite forgetting that if we could go back in time and kill Baby Sanger, there likely never would have been a Wikipedia.

2. For the longest time, you have hated people like me, serious Wikipedia critics, people who didn't hang on every word of the Sanger and slavishly repeat it as truth, in large part because he did quite often say demonstrably stupid things about Wikipedia, such as this idea Commons was a hive of kiddie porn. You jumped on that bullshit, for the same reasons behind 1.

3. Even though he does now appear to have gone fully into Crazy Town, he is still clearly on some level, the very wise man who once said a bunch of very sensible things about Wikipedia, chiefly the still very valid explanation of how it got to be so massively biased in the field of US political articles.

This is what amazes me. Wikipediocracy's latest assault on the Sanger.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 83#p288778

.....with absolutely no sense of irony, actually calls him out as a stupid head, for in part, having said this.....
Here's... here's another part of an argument perhaps and this... this is moral perhaps legal argument that this wasn't the case back in 2001 but it is now. Wikipedia has a reputation. It's a very important reputation because if something appears on wikipedia a lot of people just assume that it's factual, right? Um... and well what are people supposed to do when uh lies -- really damaging lies -- occur in that sort of situation? Well they could try suing the wikimedia foundation but the wikimedia foundation is going to cite section 230. They can try to sue the... uh... the user, but how are they going to find out who the user is if the user is anonymous?
I mean, fuuuuck.

I don't care how stupid you think the rest of what he said is, if you are advertising yourself as the pre-eminent Wikipedia critics, why the holy fucking hell, would you do ANYTHING to suggest the above were the words of a lunatic?

They are eminently true, and form perhaps a cornerstone of Wikipedia criticism.

With enemies like this, Wikipedia will last a thousand years.

Which sounds about right, because Wikipediocracy is of course, not remotely interested in either killing Wikipedia, or fixing it in way that the end result would actually be a trustworthy reference work.

NIDA
Sucks Fan
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 4:41 pm
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Wikipediocracy's enduring obsession with Larry Sanger

Post by NIDA » Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:18 am


Post Reply