←back to thread

Wikipedia’s nonprofit status questioned by D.C. U.S. attorney

(www.washingtonpost.com)
767 points coloneltcb | 1 comments | 25 Apr 25 23:03 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
jmclnx ◴[25 Apr 25 23:08 UTC] No.43799332[source]▶
Well seems the war on truth has started. There is a 1984 quote about history that escapes me now.
replies(6): >>43799359 #>>43799397 #>>43799410 #>>43799551 #>>43799584 #>>43799659 #
Alupis[dead post] ◴[25 Apr 25 23:20 UTC] No.43799397[source]▶
[flagged]
duskwuff ◴[26 Apr 25 00:23 UTC] No.43799780[source]▶
Despite anything he may say about himself, Larry Sanger is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "the founder of Wikipedia". He was a paid employee of the project in 2001; his involvement with the site ended in early 2002 when funding for the position ran out. His experience with the site nearly 25 years ago does not make him an authority on how it is run today.
replies(1): >>43799909 #
SanjayMehta ◴[26 Apr 25 00:47 UTC] No.43799909[source]▶
Wikipedia’s article on Sanger calls him cofounder and credits him with its name:

“ Lawrence Mark Sanger (/ˈsæŋər/ ⓘ;[1] born July 16, 1968) is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales. Sanger coined Wikipedia's name, and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger

replies(1): >>43800143 #
duskwuff ◴[26 Apr 25 01:36 UTC] No.43800143[source]▶
"Co-founder" is debatable, but he certainly wasn't "the founder" of the site.

Regardless - whether you choose to describe Sanger's early involvement with Wikipedia as a "founder" or not, 2002 was a long time ago, especially online. The site which he was involved with was very different from the one which exists today.

replies(1): >>43800195 #
1. SanjayMehta ◴[26 Apr 25 01:48 UTC] No.43800195[source]▶
I agree. Wikipedia used to be a useful starting point for almost any research.

Today, not so much. I can’t remember where I read it, but there was an analysis of just one topic where it was shown that circular referencing was used to establish a narrative.

Coming back to the point at hand: the US attorney targeting Wikipedia is merely restating allegations which have been made by many others on Wikipedia’s biases for and against certain topics and individuals.