Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s cofounders, was banned from editing the site indefinitely after other editors determined he was canvassing, or in other words, calling on his followers off platform in order to influence Wikipedia’s content.

Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”

Wikipedia editors obviously reject that framing and say that Sanger was banned for wielding his followers to sway discussion and decision making on Wikipedia. The discussion that led to the decision to ban Sanger concluded with what an editor called a “clear consensus” to ban Sanger.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 231 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Reality has a liberal bias.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 113 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 54 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Colbert used the term in a more traditional sense, as opposed to how it's sometimes used now as an insult by harder leftists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 170 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Part of Larry Sanger's statement

    "In the kangaroo court in which a mob ousted me, Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge..."

    Does this guy think Wikipedia is run like a country

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 155 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I’m not sure the NYP took the bait, they’re more like the bait shop; more than happy to sell whatever the right wing outrage machine is selling on a given day.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 124 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    In the kangaroo court in which a mob ousted me, Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication, and so forth

    These hypocrite fucks always rail off at the mouth about how abused they are... and it's always just to get their foot in the door. Once they run the show, they rewrite history, dole out all the abuse they want and face zero repercussions. Intolerant shits that the rest of us simply must tolerate. Well go fuck yourself Larry Sanger. The world doesn't need more right-wing bullshit.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago

    Wikipedia’s administrators showed that they don’t appear to value details like formal charges, a designated prosecutor, basic decorum, distinction between prosecution and judge, dispassionate adjudication

    1. It would be deranged and far from a good thing if online moderation and dispute adjudication decided to use a criminal model of trying to prove a person's guilt

    2. The real life criminal justice system is the opposite of unbiased and fair

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 119 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    Sanger was laid off from Wikipedia early on, started a competitor site that failed, and then returned to Wikipedia not so much to contribute but to rail against the project, his only credentials being setting up some of the crucial rules for the site two decades ago. It was really pathetic, like an ex pestering the other one years after the breakup, unable to move on. I hope he finds a better hobby now.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 112 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." --Stephen Colbert

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 59 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 18 points 2 months ago

    To me, Larry Sanger always struck me more as an Ideas Guy. Specifically, the kind of an Ideas Guy who didn't always have the best ideas. He keeps dissing Wikipedia, but just look at the absolute trainwrecks his supposedly better other projects turned out.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    The thing is Wikipedia isn't even left-wing. User survey shows the editors holds left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally. And Jimmy Wales, the founder, is an Ayn Rand reading "objectivist" for crying out loud.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    reality has a well known left-wing bias

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago

    If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a "superior". Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it's earned.

    All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature's history for their spiritual beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 57 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Accusing a site of being left bias then turning it into a right wing shithole has, sadly, worked time and time again. Let's hope Wikipedia can keep holding out.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    These reactionaries will never be happy until literally everything is a fascist propaganda outlet. Not content with all mainstream media and social media, wikipedia and other community information hubs must fall next

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    exactly. there may be genuine improvements Wikipedia could make, but as long as there's a rabid pack of chuds making demands that change happen, I'll support Wiki taking it slowly and deliberately. Anything that pisses off those fuckwits has to be good for humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 2 months ago

    Will he start working for conervapedia now?
    Good work by wikipedia. Always good to get the trash out.

  • source
  • [–] 53 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    This is fine.

    But the optics are important. There’s a concerted effort to delegitimize Wikipedia as an information source, as it’s not in Big Tech’s control.

    And they don’t have to kill it. They just have to make it less popular than, say, Grokipedia, and every headline like this is a step in that direction.

    Hence I have very scientifically minded family who are already saying some strange things about Wikipedia.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    This headline isn't a bad headline. The article seems to be pretty well balanced, and leaves plenty siding with Wikipedia. It even mentions another news article that DOES have a bad headline:

    Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 52 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Sander hasn't been a part of the Wikipedia project since 2002.

    He launched a competing project - Citizendium - which flopped. Also, the Digital Universe Encyclopedia web project, which went nowhere. And Encyclopedia of Earth which also failed to launch. WatchKnowLearn and Infobitt did a bit better, but neither became household names.

    Basically, he's been bouncing in and out of middling projects for the better part of 25 years. And I suspect this string of failures hasn't been particularly good for his ego.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 2 months ago

    That is very much the definition of snowflake behaviour.

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 2 months ago

    I read his "contributions" to the Gaza genocide article's talk page, along with the equally mealy-mouthed hand-wringing of Jimmy Wales. Total bellends both, although for different reasons. Jimmy is pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by Israeli interests, whereas Larry's pressured into being an annoying grandstanding dickhead by his childhood.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago
    [–] 19 points 2 months ago

    Hmm I wonder if Sanger knew better. I wonder if there was any smoking gun posted online that would prove this.

    “Wikipedians are now debating whether my proposed WikiProject Intellectual Diversity should be permitted to become an official WikiProject (club/group of editors),” Sanger said on X on Friday and linked to the Wikipedia talk page about the issue. “Lots opposed. Also lots in favor.”

    “Can I still join the movement?” one person replied to Sanger on X.

    “Let's just say that if I answer that question one way or another, the playground moms who rule Wikipedia might block me,” Sanger responded.

    shocked_pikachu

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›