Larry Sanger continues

[Midsize Jake]

Getting back to the topic (sort of)...

Completing the Ritual of Darkness, Sanger is going on Tucker Carlson's show.

...I'm betting he'll get bumped.

Looking at recent changes to the Tucker Carlson (T-H-L) article, I see an instance where an attempt by our own Mr. Ernie to remove some negative material about one of Carlson's anti-vaxxer pronouncements was reverted, but not much else, at least not within the past month or so. Maybe he's worried about some other article — most likely one about a current GQP distraction issue, like Critical race theory (T-H-L) — but I'd be a little surprised if this turns out to be part of a significant Fox News/GQP offensive against Wikipedia. What's more, if it were, I think they could do better than Larry Sanger... and with the Olympics coming up, it's also really bad timing.

Still, I'll DVR the thing and report back if anything actually happens.

[Randy from Boise]

Completing the Ritual of Darkness, Sanger is going on Tucker Carlson's show.

Match made in heaven by comedian deity.

t

[Without Comfort]

Maybe he's worried about some other article — most likely one about a current GQP distraction issue, like Critical race theory (T-H-L) — but I'd be a little surprised if this turns out to be part of a significant Fox News/GQP offensive against Wikipedia. What's more, if it were, I think they could do better than Larry Sanger... and with the Olympics coming up, it's also really bad timing.

Still, I'll DVR the thing and report back if anything actually happens.

Editing of Bret Weinstein (T-H-L)'s article was objected to on Twitter by @BrettWooldridge. I hadn't realized Gorski's blog could be used as a reliable source? This Freddie Sayers-Sanger interview clip has also been passed around recently on Twitter. I've seen it a couple places.

There's COVID coverage generally as well that Tucker's audience wouldn't like.

[Hemiauchenia]

Without Comfort" post_id=292269 time=1626582230 user_id=4451]
Editing of Bret Weinstein (T-H-L)'s article was objected to on Twitter by @BrettWooldridge. I hadn't realized Gorski's blog could be used as a reliable source? This Freddie Sayers-Sanger interview clip has also been passed around recently on Twitter. I've seen it a couple places.

There's COVID coverage generally as well that Tucker's audience wouldn't like.

I was heavily involved with this. Brett edited under the SPA account Heterodox2021 (T-C-L) but was banned for that tweet, which was an obvious and successful attempt to sick Weinsteins followers onto Alexbrn (T-C-L)'s personal twitter account. Science Based Medicine is distinct from Gorski's personal blog, and is generally considered a reliable source, though whether it is due in this instance is another question.

[Vigilant]

Is it just me or does Sanger look really old and in poor physical condition for being 53?

[No Ledge]

Few 50-year olds look as nice as that. I suppose they could age a lot in the next 3 years, but unlikely.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Few 50-year olds look as nice as that. I suppose they could age a lot in the next 3 years, but unlikely.

What am I looking at and why?

[Poetlister]

Few 50-year olds look as nice as that. I suppose they could age a lot in the next 3 years, but unlikely.

What am I looking at and why?

I think that's a photo of Kelly Ripa (T-H-L), who is 50. If that's a recent picture, then she is in excellent shape for her age. I have no idea why you are looking at it, of course.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Is it just me or does Sanger look really old and in poor physical condition for being 53?

I don't think Sanger looks particularly unhealthy. I thought your comment was kind of nasty until I considered that Larry Sanger has said he won't get the COVID vaccine. I hope he has a strong immune system.

[Midsize Jake]

Completing the Ritual of Darkness, Sanger is going on Tucker Carlson's show.

...I'm betting he'll get bumped.

Unfortunately I didn't bet any actual money on this, because he did, in fact, get bumped — assuming he was actually scheduled to appear last night, that is.

Or, maybe they did interview him, but scrapped it after he said something nice about Section 230, or academic freedom, or some-such thing? That would be the nice way of looking at it, I guess... but let's face it, the most likely explanation is that he just came off as too dull and nerdy, so they went with 10 minutes of fact-free Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Dore ranting instead, like they usually do.

Honestly, I don't see how you could watch that show (or Fox News in general, I suppose) over an extended period of time and not end up hating everyone and everything, everywhere, including yourself. But hey, YMMV, I guess.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Or, maybe they did interview him, but scrapped it after he said something nice about Section 230, or academic freedom, or some-such thing? That would be the nice way of looking at it, I guess... but let's face it, the most likely explanation is that he just came off as too dull and nerdy, so they went with 10 minutes of fact-free Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Dore ranting instead, like they usually do.

Sanger has been on Tucker Carlson's show before. The social media strike of 2019 practically ruined Twitter and Facebook, which is why the big tech companies have tried to bury it in the memory hole.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Looks like Sanger just got bumped to tonight.

[GorillaWarfare]

[Without Comfort]

Ignoring that the interviewer is Tucker Carlson on FOX, I thought Sanger presented the problem well. He mentioned criminal gangs, spies, etc. editing covertly. I'd be interested to see what it's like to use a resource that lets me compare articles across viewpoints, countries, etc.

[GorillaWarfare]

Ignoring that the interviewer is Tucker Carlson on FOX, I thought Sanger presented the problem well.

Sure didn't seem this way to me. In a less than five minute interview he:

• Answered the first question with "well, it's complicated" and then said something oddly specific about anonymous editing. He should have given a concise explanation of his high level criticisms of the site, which would resonate with Fox News' audience
• Said that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works anymore, which would seem to undermine his many various criticisms of how Wikipedia works
• Describes Wikipedia as an "institutionally conservative place", which will almost certainly confuse the hell out of Fox viewers
• When Tucker asks how to fix the bias in Wikipedia: "you understand how the blogosphere works, right?" and then launches into a long-winded explanation of his "Encyclosphere" idea (though he never mentions the name)
• Tucker lobs him a softball about how he feels about "what's happened to Wikipedia": "how do I feel about what?"
• Talks about how he's been "trying various things" for "over a decade now" to right the wrongs he sees in Wikipedia, not exactly instilling confidence in his ability to do so now

[Without Comfort]

Ignoring that the interviewer is Tucker Carlson on FOX, I thought Sanger presented the problem well.

Sure didn't seem this way to me. In a less than five minute interview he:

• <snip>
• Talks about how he's been "trying various things" for "over a decade now" to right the wrongs he sees in Wikipedia, not exactly instilling confidence in his ability to do so now

I think he came across as a repentant Frankenstein. I don't think he expects he can fix the problems his baby unleashed.

[No Ledge]

GorillaWarfare analysis nails it, as usual.

Dressed up and drove in to the local Fox station's studio where they probably touched him up with makeup... all for just four minutes of air time. He was probably feeling a bit uncomfortable.

Versus a 30-minute interview from home, with casual shirt pocket awkwardly tucked in, no pro lighting or makeup... but he was more in his element there. That interview left a better impression on me, if you look past visual appearances.

Problem with the idea of several wikis linked together in an "encyclosphere" is that there aren't enough qualified volunteers in the world to do one free encyclopedia right, much less several. Larry found someone to put the software together to link the 'pedias together... that's the easy part. The hard part is creating half a dozen decent free encyclopedias worth linking together.

The same problem exists in the real world, on which Wikipedia relies for its "reliable sources". Medium-sized cities used to have several quality competing newspapers. Now they're lucky if they still have one.

[No Ledge]

Fox News' news report about the Carlson–Sanger interview, with reader/listener comments attached:

Wikipedia co-founder says he's 'embarrassed' over politicization of his creation
Larry Sanger co-founded the online encyclopedia with entrepreneur Jimmy Wales in 2001

By Charles Creitz | Fox News

[GorillaWarfare]

Problem with the idea of several wikis linked together in an "encyclosphere" is that there aren't enough qualified volunteers in the world to do one free encyclopedia right, much less several. Larry found someone to put the software together to link the 'pedias together... that's the easy part. The hard part is creating half a dozen decent free encyclopedias worth linking together.

I was thinking about this last night. At first brush it sounds like a decent idea—some sort of search that would link together some of the higher quality projects like Wikipedia and Ballotpedia could be valuable.

But given Larry's various opinions on including all viewpoints, it sounds like the idea would be that anything that's nominally an encyclopedia could be included. Does this mean that search will turn up results from projects like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica? Fandom wikis that write about their subject matter as though they are in-universe? Projects like the incel wikis, WikiFur, WikiFeet?

He speaks of a rating system ("or multiple rating systems, actually"), but the sheer scale of what he's describing makes that totally unrealistic.

Can you imagine searching an ostensible knowledge resource for "Kamala Harris" and the result tells you that she wears size 9 shoes and her feet are rated 4/5 stars ("nice feet")? For "marriage" and the result defines the term as "a system of legalized prostitution"? For "tiger" and you get "Tiger colouration is distinctive, and for this reason, is often found in hybrid fursonas: witness the large number of tigerskunks, tigerroos, and tigermice in the fandom."?

[Vigilant]

Larry, like Jimbo, is a narcissist and serial business failure.

They have convinced themselves that because wikipedia is a thing, in spite of them, that they must be super special and smart and able to do 'the next big thing'.



It is unreasonable to expect anything they start to go anywhere.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Problem with the idea of several wikis linked together in an "encyclosphere" is that there aren't enough qualified volunteers in the world to do one free encyclopedia right, much less several. Larry found someone to put the software together to link the 'pedias together... that's the easy part. The hard part is creating half a dozen decent free encyclopedias worth linking together.

I was thinking about this last night. At first brush it sounds like a decent idea—some sort of search that would link together some of the higher quality projects like Wikipedia and Ballotpedia could be valuable.

But given Larry's various opinions on including all viewpoints, it sounds like the idea would be that anything that's nominally an encyclopedia could be included. Does this mean that search will turn up results from projects like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopedia Dramatica? Fandom wikis that write about their subject matter as though they are in-universe? Projects like the incel wikis, WikiFur, WikiFeet?

He speaks of a rating system ("or multiple rating systems, actually"), but the sheer scale of what he's describing makes that totally unrealistic.

Can you imagine searching an ostensible knowledge resource for "Kamala Harris" and the result tells you that she wears size 9 shoes and her feet are rated 4/5 stars ("nice feet")? For "marriage" and the result defines the term as "a system of legalized prostitution"? For "tiger" and you get "Tiger colouration is distinctive, and for this reason, is often found in hybrid fursonas: witness the large number of tigerskunks, tigerroos, and tigermice in the fandom."?

Sanger has been talking out of both sides of his mouth. When he talks about Wikipedia's neutrality rules he says that it was never intended to constrain the number of viewpoints represented in an article. He wants his nutty right-wing views equally represented, not considered as fringe views that aren't represented by reliable sources. But when it comes to Encyclosphere, that's not what he's offering.

Based on what Sanger has written, I envision Encyclosphere as Wikipedia with all the American political articles replaced by those of Conservapedia or something worse. Let's face it, Sanger is talking about American politics, or at least an American right-wing take on the world. He's not building a system that shows you multiple views of the same thing. He's building a choose-your-own-bias encyclopedia that lets you see only what you want to see.

[Bezdomni]

Problem with the idea of several wikis linked together in an "encyclosphere" is that there aren't enough qualified volunteers in the world to do one free encyclopedia right, much less several. Larry found someone to put the software together to link the 'pedias together... that's the easy part. The hard part is creating half a dozen decent free encyclopedias worth linking together.

I was thinking about this last night. At first brush it sounds like a decent idea—some sort of search that would link together some of the higher quality projects like Wikipedia and Ballotpedia could be valuable.

Erm, Ms. Warfare... Stanford Philo, the Georgia history encyclopedia, the CTLF, Persee, mit-ayiti.net... there are many interesting projects out there that could probably be linked more thoroughly via Wikidata. I find it curious that you chose Ballotpedia as your first example and not, say, your local equivalent of legifrance.fr, or oyez.org, ...

Regarding the last one... the courts, with lifetime appointments, are a much more conservative institutional force (a bit like Wikipedia in that regard)

Uncyclopedia

I bought myself a shiny new to me phone recently, due surely in large part to an Uncyclopedia article I read about President Sanders.

"marriage" [...] "a system of legalized prostitution"?
"tiger": "Tiger colouration is distinctive, and for this reason, is often found in hybrid fursonas: witness the large number of tigerskunks, tigerroos, and tigermice in the fandom."?

Sanger has been talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Twitter is evil. He should write a script that he sticks to, name names, and quit improvising. ( § )

[Vigilant]

Twitter is evil. He should write a script that he sticks to, name names, and quit improvising. ( § )

I don't think Larry has a script he can stick to.

He's reduced to just regurgitating the latest OAN talking points.

[No Ledge]

§

After working for a blockchain organization for a couple of years, Larry still doesn't know whether blockchains are a Ponzi scheme or not.

[tarantino]

Conservative troll Dinesh D'Souza (T-H-L), who has 1.7 million twitter followers, tweeted about Larry's appearance on Tucker Carlson.

https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza/status ... 5089501186

In 2014, D'Souza plead guilty to one felony charge of making an illegal campaign contribution. Trump pardoned him in 2018.

[Vigilant]

Larry looks like a hairy thumb that got smashed by a cast iron frying pan.

[Giraffe Stapler]

§

After working for a blockchain organization for a couple of years, Larry still doesn't know whether blockchains are a Ponzi scheme or not.

In case people missed No Ledge's link, it's to a podcast episode called The Radicalization of Wikipedia with Larry Sanger.

I had it on in the background for about about the first half hour but it was hard to pay attention to Sanger droning on. I was interested in his contention that "the left" have infiltrated and control the government, schools, the military, and the church but he never really expanded on it.

[Vigilant]

I was interested in his contention that "the left" have infiltrated and control the government, schools, the military, and the church but he never really expanded on it.

He's trying to say 'educated people'.

[No Ledge]

In case people missed No Ledge's link,

Sorry, that was actually Bezdomni's link that I copied from earlier in this thread. Wanted to give him credit for finding it.

[Poetlister]

I was interested in his contention that "the left" have infiltrated and control the government, schools, the military, and the church but he never really expanded on it.

It's McCarthyism revived. It wouldn't surprise me if in future he says that he has a list of leftists in key positions.

[Poetlister]

Luskin at The Federalist — Freedom Is Threatened; Now Will You Listen?

Wikipedia’s “intelligent design” entry editorializes within the first five words that such a belief is “pseudoscientific,” and editors notoriously resist changes that add balance or accuracy. This led Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger, a self-described “agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong,” to slam the entry as “appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral.” Yet Wikipedia is undoubtedly where countless people become informed — and misinformed — about evolution and intelligent design.

Evolution News

If you're quoted favourably by that site, you must be doing something wrong.

[Midsize Jake]

If you're quoted favourably by that site, you must be doing something wrong.

Well, Casey Luskin works for the Discovery Institute, so he's basically being paid to say this stuff. Maybe he even believes it, but this is one of those things where I'm unfortunately forced to agree with the Wikipedians — pretty much all Intelligent Design proponents work for the Discovery Institute, and if only for that reason, just about everything they say is inherently suspect.

Mr. Luskin doesn't currently have his own BLP, though he did as recently as 2011, when they made it into a redirect. So, maybe his criticism of WP is also tainted by sour grapes, arising from their decision to "downgrade" him. (If I were him I'd be much happier with that arrangement, of course, but I'm probably unusual in that respect.)