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.

  • Cleisthenian@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    48 minutes ago

    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

  • HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    51 minutes ago

    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.

  • XLE@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

  • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

  • XLE@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 hour 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

  • ryannathans@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Discussions about potential bans are supposed to remain open for at least 72 hours. While consensus that Sanger had violated Wikipedia policies was clear, Sanger was banned at some point before that deadline. He was then briefly unbanned, and then again indefinitely banned once 72 hours had elapsed and the discussion about the ban closed.

    There is clearly some extreme bias on Wikipedia when they can’t even follow this very normal and regularly practised rule

    • XLE@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

      He was then briefly unbanned, and then again indefinitely banned once 72 hours had elapsed

      What else were they supposed to do? Give him a get-out-of-jail-free card for a procedural mistake that they already rectified?

      • otp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        27 minutes ago

        Give him extra time to make up for how long the early ban was? Or maybe give him an extra 24h as a courtesy? I dunno, lol

        • 4am@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 minutes ago

          Was he even blocked from doing anything useful for those several hours?

          You have 72 hours to make your case, he had plenty of time to do so before those 72 hours were up, even with the incorrect ban. Another fee hours isn’t gonna make a difference.