Talk:Larry Sanger

Article Checklist for "Larry Sanger"

Workgroup category or categories	Computers Workgroup, Topic Informant Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Hayford Peirce 13:26, 26 May 2007 (CDT), Yi Zhe Wu 09:58, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

If anyone would like to rewrite this, I'll be happy to make myself available for an interview as a Topic Informant. --Larry Sanger 18:57, 18 January 2007 (CST)

New Larry Sanger article

Hmmm, there seems to have been an earlier article, perhaps? In any case, my own modest article draws from a variety of sources for its basic facts and quotations. It is, of course, impossible, to write an article such as this that does not duplicate some of the material to be found in Wikipedia. I HAVE NOT, HOWEVER, DIRECTLY REPRODUCED ANY WIKIPEDIA MATERIAL AT ALL. Hayford Peirce 13:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Jimbo

Now we have an article on Larry Sanger, maybe we'd have one for Jimbo Wales as well? Yi Zhe Wu 10:02, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Comments

This article in its present form is full of minor errors.

• The date should be written July 16, 1968, not 16 July 1968: the subject of the article is American and hence the language of the article should be American English.
• "prominently associated with the intital [sp!] projects of several online encyclopedias" -- unnecessarily vague. I was editor-in-chief of Nupedia, co-founder and chief organizer of Wikipedia, and editor-in-chief of Citizendium (you could call me founder here, too).
• Ph.D. is so written.
• Nupedia effectively was unfunded until I resigned, which was March 1, 2002, not 2001. (Actually, until a month before that, because I was a volunteer editor for one month.)
• "Nupedia was a Web-based effort that was supposed to be written and edited by experts in each field" -- no it wasn't. Please, if you don't know about something, please do research before making definite but erroneous claims like this. Nupedia was written by the general public as well as experts, but edited and reviewed by experts. The rest of this sentence is a run-on.
• Sanger stated later that "I stopped participating in Wikipedia when funding for my position ran out." -- There is no reason to quote me on a simple fact like this, of course. If a quote were necessary, my memoir would be a better source.
• 31 December 2004 - fix date.
• "2 big problems" - write out "two" of course
• Are these exact quotes? Check.
• 15 September 2006 - fix date. That was not the date of launch but of an announcement. There was nothing to launch on that date.
• "it quickly evolved" - not really. And it wasn't an evolution, it was pretty much an immediate change; our name for it was The Big Delete. Why not interview people who have been here longer, or me, if you're not sure of something?
• "all articles are reviewed by experts in that particular field" - "that" has an unspecified referent
• "approved", - in American English, the comma goes inside the quotation marks
• "meaning that it becomes mostly off-limits to further editing" - completely wrong; where did you get this impression?
• "As of May, 2007, Sanger himself is an active contributor to several on-going articles in Citizendium." - My contributions on the wiki itself are relatively unimportant; my main role here is editor-in-chief.
• The obvious item to put in the references/further reading section would be my memoir.

As you can see, this needs work. --Larry Sanger 10:21, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

I'll fix these if they haven't been remedied already. Additionally, Mr. Sanger, I might recommend a new(better) photograph.--Robert W King 12:24, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for fixing this stuff before I got around to it. One very minor nitpick: the direct quote about the "2 problems with Wikipedia" used "2" and not "two" because that's the way it was written in the article. I always thought that a direct quote was reproduced the way the original was written, whether there were stylistic differences (or spelling errors etc.) or not, not with "improvements". But, of course, "two" does look better in the present context than "2". Hayford Peirce 13:04, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, if you check the Kuro5hin article, it says "two".