Larry Sanger: How I started Wikipedia, video Options Rating

[Larry Sanger]

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c9mRKFy5fU

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqb-DhgkTTI

[Moulton]

Part 1





Part 2

[gomi]

[Moderator's note: topic title slightly edited, topic pinned. Please keep comments on-topic.]

[Malleus]

An interesting and informative account of Wikipedia's history. Thanks for taking the time Larry.

[TungstenCarbide]

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c9mRKFy5fU

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqb-DhgkTTI

did you have anyone particular in mind with the monkey at the typewriter?

[Moulton]

I was especially intrigued by Larry's remarks about the importance of setting up community governance system from the very beginning. The lack of a functional governance model was one of the very first problems I wrote about.

[Ottava]

Larry - Why do you spend time dwelling on what was between you and Wikipedia and not go into depth about how you are correcting it with your own projects or the such? I, personally, would like to see some more comparisons and the such as I know very little about your current projects.

[Larry Sanger]

They asked me to focus on Wikipedia. I decided to go with that because it occurred to me that I had never given an actual speech about the early history of Wikipedia. I have talked quite a bit about my current projects elsewhere.

[Moulton]

Larry, you said that Citizendium has a governance model based on a Social Contract. Perhaps you can say a few words about that (and provide some links).

[SB_Johnny]

Larry, I'm not sure to what extent I'm speaking for the crowd here, but (I suspect) you should keep a couple-few things in mind:

1. Your work over the years (and recently!) is not just respectable, but admirable too.

2. You're just one of the guys here. Seriously.

3. Rinse, lather, repeat.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

An interesting and informative account of Wikipedia's history. Thanks for taking the time Larry.

Agreed. Speaks volumes.

The interesting thing I took from it was the intent at the beginning to run adverts ... knowing it was going to be unpopular. It makes me think that Wales's interests were, in the first place, entirely capitalistic and that all the "save the world" stuff is just showman guff ... that, really, now it is just all about keeping the shit look good to outsiders who nothing about it to sustain his five figure speaking fees - which he pockets for himself.

Five figure speaking fees which, in my opinion, are earned off the backs of 1,000s of unpaid laborers who make the Porno-pedia the "success" some elements of media thinks it is.

Nice comment about "not devaluing one's own professional labor".

If it is any consolation, my guess is that your own rate for speaking appointments has just gone up.

Would your Southern Gentleman be interested in starting the fund for an officially established "Wikipedia Watch Foundation"?

I am not pitching for the work ... but what we really need is a PR/researcher. Perhaps not full-time PR, perhaps we could just retain a professional company, but someone dedicated to sit down, document and present all this stuff.

I think there is little doubt that such a foundation would in the future become recipient of many other donations and support from Wikipedia roadkill and other abused individuals and entities.

As you say, root of the problems was the lack of governance and a citizens' charter. I have often raised here the need of independent and paid for 'external ombudsperson' type services. Others, such as Glassbeadgame, have put forward a strong argument for using the some of the $ 10,000,000 for professional editorial staff. Change is not going to come from within now as you have a structure with, as someone else wrote, has a powerful immune system to repel all change on the outside ... but no structure at all on the inside.

You and Wales created a monster. It is bigger than a city. It has a more powerful media position than more nations. It is pushing its own propaganda and values across the world. It is impacting upon generations and each new internet community that arises internationally. And, as others have shown, is damaging and destroying real encyclopedias.

What I am talking about is not vindictiveness against the Pornopedia but a defence of the rest of society from the chemistry within it. For us, it is not so much the porn etc, it is the deeply sociopathic and inconsistent nature, of which the extreme sexual politics are only one symptom, which is the real danger.

It is about "Reclaiming the Encyclopedia".

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

Here Jimmy says they never considered ads. I cannot find his full version of the history on video but it would be interesting to put the two together ... Looking at old videos is equally interesting. There is certainly a mid-period of Wikipedia history where Jimmy became "the founder" and you officially disappeared Larry.

[anthony]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "...we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS...", both of which have ads.

[SB_Johnny]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "...we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS...", both of which have ads.

No, no. They have "messages from their supporters", not "words from their sponsors".

[A Horse With No Name]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "...we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS...", both of which have ads.

No, no. They have "messages from their supporters", not "words from their sponsors".

Oh really? Even the PBS DVDs have advertisements from their "supporters"! But, on the other hand, I'd rather see an advertisement on PBS than another Celtic Thunder concert.

[anthony]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "...we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS...", both of which have ads.

No, no. They have "messages from their supporters", not "words from their sponsors".

I fail to see how you can call the PBS ads anything but advertisements. NPR's ads are arguably something different, but I'm pretty sure the whole "keep ads off Wikipedia" crowd would object vehemently to the equivalent "This article on "operating systems" is brought to you by Microsoft. Microsoft - Where do you want to go today?"

[Jon Awbrey]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "… we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS …", both of which have ads.

Two hypotheses:

• Hype 1. Jimbo subscribes to the theory that it's not an ad if you don't call it an ad.
• Hype 2. It's been that long since he listened to NPR or watched PBS.

The hypes are not mutually exclusive.

Jon

[SB_Johnny]

Ha, sorry I had to laugh and stop the video when Wales answered "Why are there no ads on Wikipedia?" with "...we think of our role as being something like NPR or PBS...", both of which have ads.

No, no. They have "messages from their supporters", not "words from their sponsors".

I fail to see how you can call the PBS ads anything but advertisements. NPR's ads are arguably something different, but I'm pretty sure the whole "keep ads off Wikipedia" crowd would object vehemently to the equivalent "This article on "operating systems" is brought to you by Microsoft. Microsoft - Where do you want to go today?"

I guess my smiley face with the tongue sticking out was a bit too subtle?

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

Yes thank you Dr. Sanger (or may I call you Emmanuel Goldstein) for that interesting and enlightening piece of history!

And welcome to this little corner of the war against Wikiality and Jimboism!
Anyone who has fought the good fight against the atrocity monstrosity, as nobly you have, I will stand by as at least an ally, if not a comrade or a friend as well.

[Web Fred]

So when can we expect the "How I destroyed Wikipedia" youtube video?