7 ms·
Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia
- xacky 4mo agoThis is now the end of Wikipedia for me, it's only a matter of time before the rest of the admins try to split the wiki into endless forks.
- Heidaradar 4mo agodid you read the reason why he was blocked? I can't say who's right or wrong but their reasons for blocking him seem to be valid in nature.
- mijoharas 4mo agoI found the thread hard to parse.[0]. Can you explain the reason? from a brief skim he is promoting some project he wants to start in wikipedia from outside wikipedia, is that it or did I misunderstand? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noti...
- n_e 4mo ago> There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing.
- jasonlotito 4mo agoSimple. He broke this rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing This is fairly straightforward, with the result (blocked from editing) mentioned clearly. It doesn't matter the topic. Being a cofounder is immaterial.
- moralestapia 4mo agoThe link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that.
- echoangle 4mo agoThe rule is: If there is a decision to be made on Wikipedia, the decision is made by reaching a consensus among Wikipedia users using discussions. You’re not allowed to bring in other people that might share your view but that might not even be Wikipedia users and have them argue your position for you. You’re not even allowed to selectively advertise the discussion among Wikipedia users to bias the discussion.
- moralestapia 4mo agoSorry but that text is contained nowhere in the link that was provided neither are you the person I replied to. What is this supposed to mean?
- kayxspre 4mo agoWikipedia has a series of interconnected policies and guidelines, and sometimes you cannot simply make a conclusion on that page alone. The Canvassing page is a behavioral guideline that was linked to/from "Consensus" [1] (which I personally believe to be a very ironclad rule, whether positively or not), and "Consensus" is a Conduct Policy. Policy has a higher precedence as it was generally and mostly recognized and acknowledged by its members. That summary you are replying to is not a verbatim text of the guidelines (since there is none), but an interpretation of the page "Canvassing" itself. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus
- jasonlotito 4mo ago> The link you provided does not describe what would be usually be thought of as a "rule". Yes, it does. > Consider updating your comment to make more sense wrt. that. It makes perfect sense to reasonable people.
- xacky 4mo agoI've been following Wikipedia almost since it began, the stated reason is not matching the actual reason, They've wanted Larry Gone for years, even Jimmy will very be betrayed eventually. Unfortunately the real aftermath won't be known until many more get banned.
- duskwuff 4mo ago> They've wanted Larry Gone for years Larry was essentially inactive* on Wikipedia from 2002 until he started stirring things up last year. Nobody "wanted him gone" - he simply wasn't relevant to the project. *: Aside from updating his user profile and commenting on talk pages about himself and his projects.
- rsynnott 4mo ago... I mean, Sanger very publicly broke up with Wikipedia almost a quarter of a century ago. You may be a bit late.
- gaiagraphia 4mo agoAlways thought the dencrentalisation and forking of Wikipedia would be the endgame. Would allow for people to actually curate their own spaces again. Wikipedia is a great project, but I feel it's basically complete, and is technically limited. Half the references are dead or paywalled, so it's impossible to actually read more about anything. I'm sure AI would effectively be able to recreate webs of knowledge. Indexing services which compare different forks and communities providing different 'lenses' on topics would be incredibly interesting. Would give various institutions around the world something to do, aswell; curating their space and giving a badge of approval to provide a slight anti-slop defence.
- lambdaone 4mo ago> Always thought the dencrentalisation and forking of Wikipedia would be the endgame. Would allow for people to actually curate their own spaces again. Database dumps and software for the entire enyclopedia are avaible for free, and multiple forks already exist, including two which are run on behalf of the Russian and Chinese governments. You are, and have always been, more than welcome to create your own.
- gaiagraphia 4mo agoI didn't argue against it though, did I? Read again.
- phoe-krk 4mo agoPossible context at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger&oldid=1360671935 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis... - might be a better link, too.
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoYeah I wasn't sure which to post. Maybe dang can put that link in the description...
- OJFord 4mo agoFwiw in future - you can do that too on submission. URL and description are not either-or.
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoOh I thought that was only possible in [ask, tell, show]hn. Thanks!
- OJFord 4mo agoYeah it's an interesting object lesson in design or user behaviour or something – I notice this come up relatively often – I think because it's rarely used, or almost exclusively in certain circumstances as you say, people infer a stricter rule/possibility than anything it actually says ('If there is a url, text is optional.').
- account42 4mo agoSeems to be a place full of pleasant people.
- SanjayMehta 4mo agoMeatpuppetry? Bludgeoning? They've created their own lexicon and priesthood to run it. No wonder it's so badly compromised. Larry is right.
- queeshonda 4mo ago[dead]
- postflopclarity 4mo agotrying to contribute to wikipedia was the most miserable experience in a "collaborative" process I've ever had in my life. Like arguing with cranks at a town hall meeting, ignorant high school group project classmates, and bureaucracy-obsessed nonprofit initiative zealots all wrapped into one. in the area I was trying to contribute (a math subdomain) to there is sooooo much technical misinformation. but if you don't have an intimate knowledge of all the details of the editing bylaws, and seemingly infinite time to be able to litigate your case, it's almost impossible to get any of these edits through when the original page author is sufficiently motivated to prevent them.
- Mountain_Skies 4mo agoSame thing for me when I used to contribute to our local transit system's page. Things were fine for years but one day an editor for some reason took an interest in me and started going after my contributions for all manner of petty legalistic policies that were usually "best practices" rather than rules. He even moved on to my edits on other pages, which mostly were where I'd corrected a spelling or formatting error. Never understood why that happened because I wasn't involved in any edit wars or even contributions on anything that could be considered political or ideological. I just moved on to other things and left Wikipedia behind. So he "won" something, but no idea what that was.
- TZubiri 4mo agoIt's a dangerous to go alone out there! Take this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hounding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hounding
- altilunium 4mo agoIn the worst-case scenario, they will keep harassing you off-wiki, hunting for your digital footprint across other social media platforms. I actually had to retire several of my internet handles because of this wiki drama.
- avaer 4mo agoMost people don't realize that essentially all parts of Wikipedia are owned by random nerds versed in the beaurocracy who will revert all outsider edits. Unless you have hours per day dedicated to arguing with them (which they do!), the sign says you're welcome but the people say you're not. Not to say Wikipedia isn't great + useful! But realize that it is owned by a distributed network of feudal nerd-lords that will defend to their death the contents of Wikipedia articles because they get off on being the dictators of what's true. Saying this as a former Wikipedia admin + nerd.
- dotancohen 4mo agoMany of his essays have been deleted, and many others are Pending Deletion. Those deleted can be viewed only by admins. There is a large movement to censor this guy's opinions and undo his contributions. What happened? There is no explicit mention on the page.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- croes 4mo ago>There is a large movement to censor this guy's opinions Wikipedia is the wrong place for opinions
- Enginerrrd 4mo agoHaving opinions on Wikipedia policies is perfectly appropriate.
- blanched 4mo agoSure, and he's probably not being censored on those.
- dotancohen 4mo agoHe is. His essays have been deleted.
- JdeBP 4mo agoNope. * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Why_I_am_no_longer_participating_in_the_Wikipedia_project https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Why_I_am_n... Still there after 23 years.
- dotancohen 4mo agoWell this one was deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Ordinary_Legal_Rights_You_Lack_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Ordinary_Leg... And this one is now pending deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Editorial_parties_should_be_permitted_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/Editorial_pa...
- vrganj 4mo ago[flagged]
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoIf there's one article that shows the problem with Wikipedia it's the one you're quoting and it's sister https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_th... which says that cultural marxism is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory. And then you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School and leave confused... Edit: for example, here's a passage from the wiki page on frankfurt school. Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, written during the Institute's exile in America, was published in 1944. While retaining many Marxist insights, this work shifted emphasis from a critique of the material forces of production to a critique of the social and ideological forces brought about by early capitalism. So, culture? and marxism?
- vrganj 4mo ago[flagged]
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoAre you implying I'm a Nazi for thinking that there's a cultural component to Marxist thought some of which is present in modern culture?! If I misunderstood your comment, I apologize
- vrganj 4mo agoI'm not implying you're a Nazi, but I am pointing out the historical heritage of this line of argument. We've been here before, this exact same conspiracy theory was created by the Nazis to justify the unjustifiable. The slight rebranding of "Cultural B̶o̶l̶s̶h̶e̶v̶i̶s̶m̶ Marxism" is what Anders Breivik used to justify his acts of terrorism. We've gone done this road before. It doesn't lead anywhere good. I'm not putting ill intent on you, but I would implore you to reconsider your stance on this.
- octaane 4mo agoLink to the reason for his ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noti...
- josefritzishere 4mo agoI gave up on Wikipedia when the Deletionists took over.
- pKropotkin 4mo agoPure sabotage
- aaron695 4mo ago[dead]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- herodoturtle 4mo agoThere is a link in the other comments that is intended to explain the context, but as someone who isn't familiar with the structure of threads / conversations in the Wikipedia editing community, I am honestly struggling to follow it. Can someone here please help me understand what the issue is? (I keep seeing stuff in that linked article about canvassing and "the left marching through institutions" but again I'm not following the overall argument / issue. Please forgive my ignorance if I'm missing something obvious.)
- john_strinlai 4mo agoit appears that larry sanger used twitter to promote an active wiki-related proposal ("WikiProject Intellectual Diversity"), and that is bad.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- saghm 4mo agoIt seems like there's a policy against this. I don't think having rules only apply to rank-and-file members rather than founders is better in the long run.
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoMy understanding is that he was unhappy with some of Wikipedia's direction and decided to go outside official Wikipedia channels to mobilize people to rewrite policies, which is not allowed.
- coldpie 4mo agoGuy wanted to loosen rules around Wikipedia's sourcing to allow places like Breitbart and Fox News to be used as reliable sources (they are obviously not). Things were not going his way in the vote, so he asked his large social network following to brigade the vote in his favor. That's not allowed, so he's been banned.
- pjio 4mo agoAs an outsider the accusation "Canvassing" seems like a double edged sword. Similar to Reddits "Brigading" but without the hostile intention. It's not clear to me, how Wikipedia prevents this rule from being used inappropriately to silence people.
- TZubiri 4mo agoCorrect, and Administrators (and users invoking administrators) will often selectively use rules to pursue editorial purposes. I learned about wikipedia rules before learning about actual law, it's interesting to see exactly how the mechanisms of modern democracy protect against the specific ways in which Wikipedia fails: 1- Separation of powers between rulemakers and judges. In practice many Administrators who have the power to enforce rules and bans are actually editing articles themselves! 2- Ignore all rules, certainly crazy, it makes the rules an afterthought, it reminds me a bit of the Common Law focus on Case Law as opposed to Napoleonic Civil Law's focus on codified laws, but way stronger. 3- No or weak procedure. Imagine you are in a legal fight with another editor, and you say a bad word, woops, turns out that's a 2 day ban. Maybe there's a parallel with contempt of court? But what happens in wikipedia is that the whole edit war is lost on that technicality, Administrators don't rule in favour of one edit or the other, they distribute penalties to one part or the other and if one party is temp banned, they can't edit the article anymore and the article state the other party desires has a stability and consensus advantage. The only exception are protected articles, in which case administrators can emit an official ruling on what the article content should be.
- amiga386 4mo agoWhile Admins do have a lot of power, at the same time their power is checked by ArbCom. Admins are held to a higher standard than general users and are kicked out of the role and banned from reapplying if they're found to have abused their privileges (as well as being given topic bans or complete bans from editing). Merely inactive admins are automatically deadminned, because if you don't need it, you don't get it. There is also something analogous to the political world: users can petition for an administrator recall, if the issue is a rogue admin abusing their privileges, or even just the admin is trying to hold onto their privileges when it's clear to others that they don't actually need them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RECALL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RECALL So while I don't think Wikipedia is perfect, it does better than your summary implies.
- OrvalWintermute 4mo agoAt best Wikipedia is a well-edited wiki of a smorgasbord, great writing, and an incredible resource that provides amazing value. At worst it can be a hive mind echo chamber where certain views are banished to the Abyss. Certain topics attract the latter rather than the former…
- TZubiri 4mo agoMost of his posts and articles are about policy and criticism towards Wikipedia. Ironically they might have amplified the reach of their articles to laymen and editors and made him a martyr in the process.
- Mountain_Skies 4mo agoQuite often in activist spaces, the primary goal isn't to convince others of a viewpoint or even the censor other viewpoints, though those are nice side effects. The real goal is demonstrating loyalty to the group's current core beliefs, whatever those might be on that day. In spaces where the values are in constant flux, there's a greater need to constantly reaffirm allegiance to the group's current world view.
- wongarsu 4mo agoSo to summarize: he resuggested "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity", a group with the goal to make "Wikipedia more intellectually diverse" and "ensure fair and open decision-making and governance, broaden the range of permissible sources, reinforce genuine neutrality, rein in over-aggressive blocking while holding the powerful to higher standards of accountability", etc, with the implied undertone of preventing Wikipedia from drifting too far to the political left. This is unpopular because people oppose this on various grounds (mostly that it might be vote brigading and tiling decisions in their favor just by showing up in an organised way around wikipedia). Also the same project was apparently suggested before and rejected in early stages But then he made a tweet that basically just says "I suggested this, some people like it, some hate it". That's super against the rules, because it attracts people to the proposal who otherwise wouldn't have seen it. Probably in an attempt to sway discussion, because his tweets are obviously seen primarily by people who like his ideas Which then lead to the vote to ban him from editing Wikipedia. With a total ban getting more votes than a more limited ban, like banning him from participating in articles namespaced for internal matters Is that about right?
- draw_down 4mo ago[dead]
- Sweepi 4mo agoWell there is a lot more, e.g.: After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than there are in, say, England. Just due to sheer numbers, you can field a lot of good writers on Wikipedia, and if you quite simply learn how to play the game..." (33:54). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger&oldid=1360671935#CNN-News18_podcast_interview https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...
- 4mo ago
- roenxi 4mo agoMore than whatever process was used, just looking at his user page I do think some sort of ostracism-like response was inevitable. The thing about communities like Wikipedia is when you have a group of volunteers coming together to do something the culture has to be somewhat intolerant of cultural change, otherwise it'll fall apart pretty quickly. To repeat that another way, culture defines who is part of the in- and out-group, so once the group has formed it is very slow to change or the group collapses. I quite like what he's going for with these 9 theses - the ideas of the public rating articles or enabling competition between articles seems like a clever compromise position - but frankly I don't see how the Wikipedia community could treat this as anything other than an attack whether or not the ideas are improvements. The parallel with Martin Luther and the Catholic Church was appropriately foreshadowed by Sanger. Organisations eventually become corrupt. Wikipedia might already be there or it might have a ways to go, who knows. But this sort of change might require a new project or some sort of schism among the Wikipedia editors, it sounds pretty radical. Especially in the post-Trump era; I expect his presidency has been a traumatic era for the English Wikipedia project.
- mschuster91 4mo ago> I quite like what he's going for with these 9 theses - the ideas of the public rating articles or enabling competition between articles seems like a clever compromise position - but frankly I don't see how the Wikipedia community could treat this as anything other than an attack whether or not the ideas are improvements. The problem with the "competing articles" is that the end game is quite obvious - the far-right wants to get crap like Musk's "Grokipedia" or "Conservapedia" out of the gutters where it belongs and into the brand protection of Wikipedia. And that, frankly, is an existential threat.
- coldpie 4mo agoI mean this in a friendly way: you are falling for it. Sanger's goal here is to get low-quality sources allowed on Wikipedia to promote his personal political beliefs. This was relatively politely argued down by Wikipedia editors, but he chose to try to recruit a brigade to swing the discussion in his favor, which is not allowed. There's no attempt to improve Wikipedia going on here.
- altilunium 4mo agoI also have problems with Wikipedia, sure, but I resolved them simply by setting up a private wiki, and it's been quite peaceful. Changing the whole institutional culture at Wikipedia is more of a social challenge than a technical one, and I am not well-versed in that area. So, I would rather fork some wiki software, write code, and write articles for myself. Will my wiki be able to compete with a giant like Wikipedia on the internet? I don't know. I don't even know whether mine is indexed by search engines yet. But I love writing articles, so I'll keep doing it as long as I can.
- daneel_w 4mo ago[flagged]
- mzajc 4mo agoI encourage people to read through his proposed WikiProject's page[0] and the related discussion.[1] Important context is also that WikiProjects are exempt from canvassing rules; members are free to notify each other of ongoing policy discussions with the goal of influencing the outcome. This is usually not a problem, but given how aggressively vague the WikiProject's goals are (eg. "We hope to open Wikipedia up to using more sources" - which?) and Larry Sanger's prior conduct (eg. advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News[2]), it seems the real goal was organizing conservative editors. I'm not sure whether the fact that this is not clearly written is deception or trolling, but it's not a good look for Sanger either way. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cou... [2]: https://san.com/cc/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-has-liberal-bias-heres-his-plan-to-fix-that/ https://san.com/cc/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-has-libera...
- dotancohen 4mo ago> advocating for whitelisting of sources like Fox News As I understood it, he wasn't advocating for whitelisting Fox News, he was advocating for removing the blacklist. That's a stark difference. > it's not a good look for Sanger either way. What doesn't look good for him? It doesn't seem that he has an intent other than enabling the viewpoint of those other than the far-left, which compromise almost the entirety of Wikipedias admins and editors.
- OskarS 4mo agoOne useful thing to do sometimes when looking at whether or not a user is interested in participating in Wikipedia or just participating in arguing about things is to look at their contributions to actual wikipedia articles, the thing Wikipedia is all about. This is the list of articles Sanger contributed to in 2026: [1] Compare that too all his contributions: [2] Does it seem like this person is participating in Wikipedia in a genuine way? Or is he there to start political arguments on various internal pages? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Larry_Sanger&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2026-01-01&end=&limit=500 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContrib... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Larry_Sanger&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=2026-01-01&end=&limit=500 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContrib...
- FireBeyond 4mo agoThere are very many admins, even bureaucrats who can and have failed that particular test. I voted 'no', often unsuccessfully, on many admin candidates who had upwards of 70 or 80% of their contributions being in the WP: namespace.
- textrunmax 4mo ago[dead]
- JdeBP 4mo agoThere is a long history here, and if you are looking at just the WikiProject and the community ban discussion, you are missing a Hell of a lot. Very short background: Larry Sanger left Wikipedia in 2003. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/707321 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/707321 Sanger went on to set up Citizendium, a wiki encyclopaedia project organized the way that xe thought one should be organized, with an extensive rulebase and 'constables'. Sanger's edits on Wikipedia were sporadic from 2004 to 2023, and were almost exclusively focussed on Jimmy Wales's account talk page, the articles on Sanger and Wales, the article on Citizendium, and the articles on the history and criticism of Wikipedia. There was also a whole debate on whether Sanger was a co-founder or an employee. Citizendium died 15 years ago. (Yes, you can see it now. It was resurrected in 2022, everyone having to start from scratch with new accounts.) I actually thought of getting an account there in its early years, but for several years prior to its effective death it sported an announcement that the new accounts process was temporarily not in service, come back later. The writing was on the wall for a long time. Sanger re-gained interest in Wikipedia in 2025, but still far more interested in how an encyclopaedia should be governed, which motivated the creation of Citizendium in the first place, than in actually writing one. In the intervening years, xe had done a lot of punditry from the sidelines, concentrating everything through a lens of U.S.A. politics.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- spidercat 4mo agoMaybe not particularly relevant, but I'm noticing you using "xe" pronouns for Sanger. Why is that? Just wondering if I am missing more context.
- fatata123 4mo ago[dead]
- moralestapia 4mo agoLarry Sanger is very clearly a man and has never expressed any desire to be treated differently than that. JdeBP is misgendering him on purpose, which is a very serious offense and even illegal in many parts of the world. We'll see if this is allowed to stay here.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- pKropotkin 4mo ago[flagged]
- Planktonne 4mo agoBanning transparent bad actors, even when they don't outright admit that's what they are, is both legitimate and necessary.
- ZeroGravitas 4mo agoDid he explain why he returned to save/undermine Wikipedia after all this time? Paid by evil billionaires? Or just a continuing descent into MAGA-tinged madness?
- g42gregory 4mo agoHe has been demonstrating wrongthink for quite a while. Because of that, I am not surprised at the Wikipedia reaction.
- panny 4mo ago[flagged]
- jrflowers 4mo agoHe left in 2003 and did start a new wiki
- AnimalMuppet 4mo agoWhere, specifically, in that tediously long article does it say that Iran won the war? I found one citation of an external source whose title claimed that Iran won, and another claiming that there was "a significant shift in Iran's favor". And I'm not surprised that the article is locked. If it were open to edit, there would be massive partisan re-writing of it, from all sides (Democratic, Republican, Iranian, Israeli, probably Chinese...)
- panny 4mo agoRight hand side, just under the map. Date, Location, Result: Iranian Victory.
- AnimalMuppet 4mo agoFair enough. I missed that. Still, at least it marks it as disputed...
- peppersghost93 4mo agoIn what way has Iran not won the war? They're basically dictating the terms of ending it.
- tim333 4mo agoIf you click the link on that where it says "discuss" to the right of "Iranian victory" there's quite a lot of open discussion on whether to say won or inconclusive, with about 2/3 of people going for won. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Iran_war#Iranian_Victory_vs_Inconclusive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_Iran_war#Iranian_Vic... I think quite a lot of people calling it biased don't really understand how it works - mostly by that sort of vote amongst the kind of people who went to university so I guess left of the Republican party but not too bad. Not sure how you'd improve it except maybe a Ground News kind of approach of having two views - right wing sources say, left wing say. But then many controversies don't neatly split left-right. Also it's not that locked. I could edit it for example - you need to have 500 edits. And I think anyone can chip in on the "discuss" bit.
- nickburns 4mo agoLarry Sanger once called me "butthurt" just before welcoming me to his e-mail "killfile". I forget the context completely, but to this day it stands as one of my proudest young Internet troll moments.
- NordStreamYacht 4mo agoIrony https://x.com/lsanger/status/2069459673959330143 https://x.com/lsanger/status/2069459673959330143
- skullshark 4mo agoyeesh
- lobito25 3mo agoWikipedia is biased for many years. Check the donations list, and you'll find the chosen...