Sanger strikes back, Is Jimmy a liar? Options Rating

[Milton Roe]

Consider the pyramids of Egypt, still a wonder of the modern world as well as the ancient one. ...It's only when you look at the final result and ignore the intermediate steps, that it all looks semi-miraculous.

Did you notice nobody builds pyramids any more, because they're pretty much a waste of people's time? I wonder if there's a lesson somewhere in there, about building "semi-miraculous" websites.

Well, pyramids were vast public works which the Egyptians finally realized could not be kept from vandalism and thievery. I don't know how long it took them to figure this out. Longer than WP has been around, anyway.

A pyramid was a sort of resurrection machine and religious art-artifact. Kind of like a cathedral or temple. or one of those monuments to our modern National Religion, the Sports Arena (we're more like Rome than Egypt in that regard). All equally wastes of time, and certainly public money, say I. But tastes vary.

[dtobias]

Did you notice nobody builds pyramids any more,

There's one in Memphis, Tennessee.

[anthony]

Specifically, it didn't evolve in the way Sanger thought it would.

He was laid off before it got a chance to. His idea was to take the Wikipedia articles and then reimport them back into Nupedia. He was never given a chance to do that.

Clearly Sanger thought experts would be drawn in earlier than they were. Wrong.

I don't think that is clear. In fact, I think he'd contend just the opposite, that he thought experts would be even less willing to contribute than they were.

We even saw Sanger go and try to create his ideal encyclopedia in the way he though it should/could grow, with experts involved from the ground up. And it didn't work. As if that's not proof enough that Sanger missed "intelligent design" credit.

Maybe you're right. I agree that Sanger made some serious errors with Citizendium. But that was a quite different project, because Wikipedia was already there, and huge, at the time it got started. So we'll never know for sure what would have happened if Wales had let Sanger run Wikipedia/Nupedia, or even if he had just not given up, laid Sanger off, and turned Wikipedia into a non-profit figuring at least the failed idea would give him a tax write-off.

[luke]

[...] [...] I agree that Sanger made some serious errors with Citizendium. But that was a quite different project, because Wikipedia was already there, and huge, at the time it got started. So we'll never know for sure what would have happened if Wales had let Sanger run Wikipedia/Nupedia, or even if he had just not given up, laid Sanger off, and turned Wikipedia into a non-profit figuring at least the failed idea would give him a tax write-off.

Whatever errors Dr Sanger made, he's clearly riled by Jimmy Wales's openly condescending attitude towards him .... e.g. Jimmy referring to him as Mr Sanger (perhaps deliberately, perhaps a simple oversight) under the present circumstances and in that context was not a 'good idea.' Common sense.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Ahem, some of us still write over there. I myself am on record that WP succeeds largely IN SPITE of its bad management, and that the content is not all hopelessly bad, and in fact is (in many places) amazingly good.

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

[Cedric]

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

Well, valuable to gamers, libelers, polemicists and revenge-seekers, at least.

[Doc glasgow]

I have to agree that it is difficult to do counter-factuals here.

The biggest problem any other encyclopedia project faces, is that Wikipedia exists. Even if you have a different model, which addresses some of Wikipedia's drawbacks, why would a critical mass of people want to work on your (initially tiny) project, when they can contribute to something as high-profile and in your google-face as wikipedia? Why join another struggling community, when you can get instant feedback to your work on WP? When Wikipedia began it simply did not have any real competition for readers or writers.

What it Citizendium had existed before wikipedia? Well, Wikipedia's open model would probably still have attracted the masses. But if CZ had been well-established, one could imagine a world where most of our FA writers worked there, and saw little benefit in moving to a project where they would have to contend on a equal basis with uneducated ignorance with an attitude. Once can imagine a world where anyone looking for an article on a mainstream topic would go to CZ first, returning to wikipedia only if one wanted a bio of a porn star, a Star Trek update, or to read an article on your local school. (I'm being facetious here, the WP model would always handle the less notable and the popular culture better - because even if inaccurate, it would find someone to write something).

Imagine a world where there was a quality alternative to Wikipedia? Well, yes I can.

But, as they say, if I wanted to get there I would not start from here.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Sat 11th April 2009, 11:09am

[Jon Awbrey]

Ahem, some of us still write over there. I myself am on record that WP succeeds largely IN SPITE of its bad management, and that the content is not all hopelessly bad, and in fact is (in many places) amazingly good.

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on Google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

One again, the Ethical IQ of Randroids is so asymptotic to nil that we have to put up with yet another «Ends Justifying The Means, Oops, Sorry About The Collateral Dumbage, But Hitler Had Some Good Ideas, and the Pharaohs Built Good Pyramids, Didn't They?» brands of excuses for argument.

It's like Philosophy 101 all over again, just before the first quiz, when all the Randroids flunk their first essay and have to drop out …

At least now they have a place to go …

Jon Awbrey

[GlassBeadGame]

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

The reason why you prefer the "bad management" is that it clears the way for the dysfunction social networking community and game like environment which you have excelled within. This thread has developed into a compelling exposé of the mechanics of your method. Thank you for making that possible. The result truly is "amazing" but not for the value of what has been achieved.

Dr. Sanger's project stumbles along because of it's own faults which do not include "good management."

[Somey]

Whatever errors Dr Sanger made, he's clearly riled by Jimmy Wales's openly condescending attitude towards him .... e.g. Jimmy referring to him as Mr Sanger (perhaps deliberately, perhaps a simple oversight) under the present circumstances and in that context was not a 'good idea.' Common sense.

Probably not the best way to make the whole issue disappear, is it?

Still, maybe I'm being premature, but Dr. Sanger, or "Larry" if you prefer, hasn't yet allowed either our WR blog's trackback, or my own direct comment, to appear in his "Updates..." blog entry. Maybe he thinks it would just further inflame the situation, though I'm not sure how much worse he thinks it can get...?

Or maybe he just doesn't like me very much!

[TungstenCarbide]

Ahem, some of us still write over there. I myself am on record that WP succeeds largely IN SPITE of its bad management, and that the content is not all hopelessly bad, and in fact is (in many places) amazingly good.

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

I think there is some truth there, SV. But it's only part of the truth.

How do you know wikipedia succeeded because of its bad management? How do you know it wouldn't have been even better with Sanger at the helm? How much of Wikipedia's success comes from google, regardless of its management style. If Larry was too hands on, as you say, what effect did it have? did it drive away good editors or did it drive away assholes and idiots? Do you think Larry would have sat on his ass for years, literally, while software existed for revision control?

Next, look at the men; one created Wikipedia and its core principals. When his time came he turned the other cheek and went on down the road, rarely to be heard from except when defending his professional reputation. The other has been trying to rewrite history, casting himself as the 'sole founder'.

So you made a postulation that I think has merit. But you also need to acknowledge that after Larry's baby took off like a red hot volcano Jimbo started this 'sole founder' crap.

We've all heard about the stereotypical disgruntled ex-employee. But here it's reversed - we have a disgruntled ex-employer trying to take credit while maligning the project's creator. Pitiful, actually, but understandable given that Jimbo's made a pretty nifty career out of Larry's creation, with wikia and those speaking fees and all.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

Well, that's the received narrative, which sounds nice if you have a burning need to let wikipedia make you feel "valuable".

Assessed by people who don't have that need, it starts to look different, a bulk of inaccurate, partisan, obscurantist, trivial, or just plain silly material presenting itself as reliable and "encyclopedic". Wikipedia isn't focussed on making knowledge available - it's attempting to enclose and own facts, putting them in the hands of ideologues who would use smears and bullying to mould a controlled version.

I suspect Sanger is pained by more than the lack of due credit.

[LessHorrid vanU]

"See how the rascals used me! They will not let my play run; and yet they steals my thunder" (adapted from John Dennis)

I think this is how Sanger sees himself; he indeed left the project and went into other fields, and now is unrecognized when another takes credit for his work. It doesn't have to be major elements, it is simply galling to have someone take credit for something they did not invent. Perhaps all the more when the project is an encyclopedia, where truth - or the acknowledged version of it - should be the basic currency.

[anthony]

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

That was sarcasm, right?

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on Google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

That was sarcasm, right?

I think it's called a mantra — you can tell by the sound of wiki-φinger-cymbals in the background.

Ja Ja

[anthony]

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on Google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

That was sarcasm, right?

I think it's called a mantra — you can tell by the sound of wiki-φinger-cymbals in the background.

Ja Ja

I guess if you equate success with popularity, the first paragraph makes sense. And I guess if you consider the destruction of mankind to be valuable to "the world", the second makes sense.

[GlassBeadGame]

Has CZ sufficiently dealt with BLPs and defamation? Apart from article generation and traffic that is? Is Dr. Sanger's project hurting anyone?

[TungstenCarbide]

Has CZ sufficiently dealt with BLPs and defamation? Apart from article generation and traffic that is? Is Dr. Sanger's project hurting anyone?

CZ has several things that minimize BLP/defamation; 1) you have to register to edit, 2) you use your real name for your user account (usually), 3) editors note their credentials 4) there is a release system that is continually evolving 4) new edits are made to a draft page instead of the approved page.

This is just what I gleaned from looking over the site briefly. Anyway, all of those things both minimize vandalism/defamation compared to W and provide for more accountability over the long run.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Sun 12th April 2009, 2:22am

[EricBarbour]

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Sun 12th April 2009, 5:22am

[victim of censorship]

Wikipedia has succeeded *because of* its bad management, or its lack of management. Sanger's project failed because he was too hands-on and made people jump through too many hoops. Jimbo set up a project with no hoops; where you could write something and see it immediately appear in an article and on Google; and he knew when to back off and let people get on with it.

The result was an amazing, collaborative project that produced a body of knowledge that is incredibly valuable to the world.

That was sarcasm, right?

I think it's called a mantra — you can tell by the sound of wiki-φinger-cymbals in the background.

Ja Ja

And the large aluminum pot of Jimbo Juice ( Flavor-Aid laced with the toxic lies and culture of the Wikpediot cesspool)

and Jimbo on the PA system droning on as the line of of children, brainwashed, line up and quaff down the J-juice.

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Sun 12th April 2009, 12:01pm