Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Larry Sanger: How I started Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
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
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:41pm) *


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
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 7th May 2010, 11:13pm) *
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
QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:24pm) *

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". tongue.gif
A Horse With No Name
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:23am) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:24pm) *

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". tongue.gif


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. ermm.gif
anthony
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 8th May 2010, 12:23pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:24pm) *

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". tongue.gif


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
QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:24pm) *

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 tongue.gif
SB_Johnny
QUOTE(anthony @ Sat 8th May 2010, 10:25am) *

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Sat 8th May 2010, 12:23pm) *

QUOTE(anthony @ Fri 7th May 2010, 10:24pm) *

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". tongue.gif


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? blink.gif
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?
Moulton
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *
So when can we expect the "How I destroyed Wikipedia" youtube video?

Jimbo, being the King of Denial, will never admit that he destroyed his own monster-baby.
Web Fred
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:37am) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *
So when can we expect the "How I destroyed Wikipedia" youtube video?

Jimbo, being the King of Denial, will never admit that he destroyed his own monster-baby.


Ah, but who lit the blue-touchpaper and retired to a safe distance?
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Moulton @ Sat 8th May 2010, 7:37pm) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *
So when can we expect the "How I destroyed Wikipedia" youtube video?

Jimbo, being the King of Denial, will never admit that he destroyed his own monster-baby.


QUOTE
I know how to saw a woman in two.
But you won't want to look in box when I'm through.
Warren Zevon, For My Next Trick I'll Need a Volunteer
SB_Johnny
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:41pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:37am) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *
So when can we expect the "How I destroyed Wikipedia" youtube video?

Jimbo, being the King of Denial, will never admit that he destroyed his own monster-baby.


Ah, but who lit the blue-touchpaper and retired to a safe distance?

lolwut?
Larry Sanger
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *

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


Well, that will certainly have to wait until current events play out. The narrative is still ongoing. For example, just a few minutes ago, I was blocked..."touched for the very first time...like a viiiiiiirgin..."

Sorry, I'm still giggling at the absurdity of it all.
RDH(Ghost In The Machine)
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sun 9th May 2010, 2:30am) *

QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sat 8th May 2010, 8:32pm) *

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


Well, that will certainly have to wait until current events play out. The narrative is still ongoing. For example, just a few minutes ago, I was blocked..."touched for the very first time...like a viiiiiiirgin..."

Sorry, I'm still giggling at the absurdity of it all.


Glad you're diggin the village of the banned, I know I do.
It beats the hell out of the one King James and his Jimbots have constructed since you left.
rolleyes.gif

Larry Sanger
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th May 2010, 8:07pm) *

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).


I intended to talk more about this, but got sidetracked. Well, basically, we require that our "Citizens" agree to a Statement of Fundamental Policies, soon to be replaced by a Charter.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter_drafting

The essay that kicked it off is relevant:
http://www.citizendium.org/essay.html

And so is this essay/speech, which I think might be right up your alley:
http://www.larrysanger.org/newpoliticsofknowledge.html
Moulton
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Sun 9th May 2010, 1:14am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 7th May 2010, 8:07pm) *
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).
I intended to talk more about this, but got sidetracked. Well, basically, we require that our "Citizens" agree to a Statement of Fundamental Policies, soon to be replaced by a Charter.

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Fundamentals
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter_drafting

The essay that kicked it off is relevant:
http://www.citizendium.org/essay.html

And so is this essay/speech, which I think might be right up your alley:
http://www.larrysanger.org/newpoliticsofknowledge.html

That's very helpful, Larry. Thanks for posting those links.

Have you compared Citizendium's Charter and Terms of Engagement against those of other comparable projects (e.g. Scholarpedia)? If so, have you found any significant differences?

It will take me some time to digest the above materials, but I was arrested (pun intended) by this paragraph in your second essay...

QUOTE(Larry Sanger Essay/Speech)
Governments, and everyone else, implicitly recognize that social groups, however new and different, have their own interests and are usually capable of regulating themselves. It is a truly striking thing that people come together from across the globe and, out of their freely donated labor and strings of electrons, form a powerful new corporate body. When they do so—as I have repeatedly observed—they develop a sense of themselves as a group, in which they invest some time and can take some pride, and which they govern by rules.

I am very interested in the self-governance models of online communities, especially where there is a substantial likelihood of recurring conflict among members of the community. You might recall the motto of The WELL -- "Tools not Rules" -- which suggests that a rules and sanctions regulatory model, enforced by some kind of constabulary with due process adapted from concepts found in civil law may not be the only way to go in a collegial and congenial online community. Most people cannot imagine a functional alternate that would displace and improve upon a rules and sanctions regulatory model. I was wondering if you have thought about more enlightened alternative regulatory models than one grounded in rules and sanctions enforced by a constabulary.
Cock-up-over-conspiracy
Hold on a moment, according to Henry Blodget's of businessinsider.com "leadership series" video, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had the idea for a volunteer written Encyclopedia in 1999.

And the volunteers really "care about quality"!!!

I still think all these capitalists are just sucking up to jimbo to find out how to get their workers to work for free.
Larry Sanger
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:48am) *

Hold on a moment, according to Henry Blodget's of businessinsider.com "leadership series" video, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had the idea for a volunteer written Encyclopedia in 1999.

And the volunteers really "care about quality"!!!

I still think all these capitalists are just sucking up to jimbo to find out how to get their workers to work for free.


Yo, Jimmy Wales has lied about many things, but actually not this. He had the notion of a free encyclopedia in late 1999, he has always said, which is when he originally registered Nupedia.com, the domain name. He did not of course have "the idea for Wikipedia" then. He had just the vaguest of ideas--an "open source" encyclopedia.
anthony
QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Mon 31st May 2010, 5:56pm) *

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 31st May 2010, 11:48am) *

Hold on a moment, according to Henry Blodget's of businessinsider.com "leadership series" video, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales had the idea for a volunteer written Encyclopedia in 1999.

And the volunteers really "care about quality"!!!

I still think all these capitalists are just sucking up to jimbo to find out how to get their workers to work for free.


Yo, Jimmy Wales has lied about many things, but actually not this. He had the notion of a free encyclopedia in late 1999, he has always said, which is when he originally registered Nupedia.com, the domain name. He did not of course have "the idea for Wikipedia" then. He had just the vaguest of ideas--an "open source" encyclopedia.


Rick Gates had the notion of a free, volunteer written encyclopedia in 1993.

What I wonder is the relationship between Nupedia and Gnupedia.

March 25, 1999: RMS presents The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource to SIGCSE 1999

October 1999: RMS presents The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource to the MacArthur Fellows Reunion

October 29, 1999: Jimmy Wales registers nupedia.com and nupedia.org

February 10, 2000: Jimmy Wales [sic] registers gnupedia.com and gnupedia.org

January 17, 2001: The Free Universal Encyclopedia and Learning Resource (GNUPedia) is launched by RMS.

Did Jimmy Wales get the idea from RMS, did RMS get the idea from Jimmy, did they both get the idea from someone else, or is it just a strange coincidence? Did Wales attend SIGCSE 1999? Did he listen to the presentation by RMS? Did someone else who attended one of the presentations later mention the idea to Wales?
thekohser
And a couple more dates to add to the mix, since it is Henry Blodget fawning over Jimmy:

Early 2000: Blodget personally invested $700,000 in tech stocks, only to lose most of it in the subsequent dot-com bubble bursting and the years that followed.

Early 2003: Blodget charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

April 28, 2003: Blodget censured and permanently barred from the securities industry by the SEC, and will make a total payment of $4 million to settle the charges against him.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.