4 ms·

Wikipedia: Since Sanger's departure from Wikipedia, he has been critical of the project, describing it in 2007 as being "broken beyond repair".[2] Poor guy is

Wikipedia: Since Sanger's departure from Wikipedia, he has been critical of the project, describing it in 2007 as being "broken beyond repair".[2] Poor guy is really beating a dead horse about "left wing" Wikipedia. Oddly, he doesn't seem to be working on Conservapedia [https://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger https://www.conservapedia.com/Larry_Sanger] but something called Encyclosphere [2] https://www.itnews.com.au/news/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repair-says-co-founder-78127 https://www.itnews.com.au/news/wikipedia-broken-beyond-repai...

timbo1642 5y ago
Funny thing is that you're completely okay with the lies the left pushes all day long. You don't want two sides
- okareaman 5y ago
  I never said anything like that. You jumped to a conclusion. He lost the battle a long time ago. Wikipedia is huge and hard to steer. I put "left wing" in quotes because that seems to be his sentiment. Unfortunately for conservatives, internet savvy people like those who edit Wikipedia seem to be overwhelmingly liberal. I'd be ok if Wikipedia was more balanced, but that's just not the way it is. Like Marlo Stanfield said in The Wire; "You want it one way, but it's another."
duskwuff 5y ago
There's a few more Sanger "Wikipedia but better I promise" projects you missed -- Digital Universe, Infobitt, and Everipedia. Not that any of them amounted to anything. But I think you've hit upon an important point here -- Sanger has been coasting off his early involvement with Wikipedia for the last 20 years. At this point, the Wikipedia project owes much more to the editors who have been working on it for the past 20 years than it does to him.
- okareaman 5y ago
  I can think of a couple of one hit wonders in the music world who also need to let it go. That's the vibe I get. Enjoy your claim to fame and be glad you have one. You are absolutely correct that it was built mostly by contributing editors and belongs to all of us. I feel it will be one of the top 5 things people recognize about the early internet centuries from now. Too bad Sanger doesn't enjoy that.

timbo1642 5y ago

Funny thing is that you're completely okay with the lies the left pushes all day long. You don't want two sides

okareaman 5y ago
I never said anything like that. You jumped to a conclusion. He lost the battle a long time ago. Wikipedia is huge and hard to steer. I put "left wing" in quotes because that seems to be his sentiment. Unfortunately for conservatives, internet savvy people like those who edit Wikipedia seem to be overwhelmingly liberal. I'd be ok if Wikipedia was more balanced, but that's just not the way it is. Like Marlo Stanfield said in The Wire; "You want it one way, but it's another."

duskwuff 5y ago

There's a few more Sanger "Wikipedia but better I promise" projects you missed -- Digital Universe, Infobitt, and Everipedia. Not that any of them amounted to anything. But I think you've hit upon an important point here -- Sanger has been coasting off his early involvement with Wikipedia for the last 20 years. At this point, the Wikipedia project owes much more to the editors who have been working on it for the past 20 years than it does to him.

okareaman 5y ago
I can think of a couple of one hit wonders in the music world who also need to let it go. That's the vibe I get. Enjoy your claim to fame and be glad you have one. You are absolutely correct that it was built mostly by contributing editors and belongs to all of us. I feel it will be one of the top 5 things people recognize about the early internet centuries from now. Too bad Sanger doesn't enjoy that.