• Hmm... Sanger's view on "P" in GASP may be a call for exclusion of queer people participating in editing. As for abolition of blacklisting far-right sources, this may indirectly enable fascism to unwary readers. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is unlikely. jp×g🗯️ 07:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The G of course is an old antisemitic trope. Bearian (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In right-wing circles, it is antisemitic. In left-wing circles, there is an aversion to global corporatism, which may be called globalism. At any rate, there are groups who fear what an emerging global point-of-view can become or is becoming. Why else would we see forces around the world encouraging moves toward fascism and/or libertarian capitalism, and away from social democracy (as an umbrella term)? The short answer is they fear the world being decidedly against their narrow interests. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's accurate to say that 'globalists' is a dogwhistle for Jews (most antisemites are quite open about it, as of late). Firstly, because the self-declared enemies of globalists have not identified Jews as the same group (think Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson), and secondly† because it would be absurd for Larry Sanger to come to Wikipedia and say that Jews are ruining it. He is most certainly not saying that: he identifies the World Economic Forum as emblematic of what he's talking about.

  †I apologize if my assumption of your understanding of Sanger as coming from the right is incorrect. Embyarby (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sanger is clearly collaborating with US right-wingers in pushing this proposal whether or not he is on the right. As for whether right-wingers use 'globalist' when they mean Jew, I don't mean to suggest it is universal but rather a tendency. 'Globalist' has indeed been used as such a dog whistle by right-wing politicians. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It must be decades now that Larry Sanger has written anything about Wikipedia that was not utter nonsense, but now he's apparently become full fascist, cozying up to Tucker Carlson . Why give this moron such a platform? Let him spread his nonsense on "Truth Social" etc. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• old guy demands respect whilst shouting at the moon. Not seeing a reason why this editor has any standing nor why we as a community should give these ideas any oxygen. He obviously has a right to air his views in a personal essay. The rest of us have a right to critique it or ridicule it or just ignore it. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's healthy to consider an outsider's point-of-view, even if most of Sanger's ideas are junk. I actually am open-minded to a few of his ideas (see below) but there are certainly no "diamonds" in there. If he would have just stayed involved with Wikipedia over the past two decades, his perspective would be a lot stronger and a lot more respectable. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If Twitter is any example as to what de-wokeifying a platform results in, I think I am fine with Wikipedia keeping its current biases. The anti-woke crowd is welcome to make an alternative and compete in the free market. They can even use MediaWiki, it's FOSS! But no, they want affirmative action and quotas within Wikipedia for themselves. Ironic. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Multiple alternatives in fact exist. Conservapedia is perhaps the best-known. Izno (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not exactly competition for a neutral POV (a necessity for something calling itself an encyclopedia). But yes, it exists. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read some of Conservapedia's articles. I swear they've been infiltrated by satirists. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• oh boy... demanding editors ignore their own "lying eyes" with threats of doxxing. how fun. FractalDreamz ✯ 11:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: Sanger; WP:DFTT. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we giving a former Wikipedia admin from a different time period, who certainly knows and acts in bad faith, a soapbox here? "9 Theses" isn't a user essay, and we know Larry is going to publish this shit anyway. Please, for the love of sanity, for this website, remove this crap. – The Grid (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanger is pretty much WP:POLEMIC, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:WEBHOST for his "essay" when reviewing WP:USERESSAY. – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • And also he violated WP:NQP. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Founder clout? Really, that is the only reason his views get covered. Otherwise, he'd be seen as a dude with 'pinions. Sanger is long-disconnected from this movement and it shows. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I kinda agree with 9. But not in the sense of a whole legislature, but defining ArbCom as a sort of Supreme Court and possibly having a president of English Wikipedia to better communicate with the foundation, help us shape new features, and give us more of a united front against censorship. I believe that we need to take a more aggressive stance on censorship than the foundation is currently doing and directly call governments out. The rest of his proposals are a flamming pile of garbage though. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of all his theses, this one seems to be the most reasonable and the most likely to garner widespread support. It would institutionalize a de facto reality that we sometimes like to pretend doesn't exist: certain editors have more authority than others. I prefer the "admins as janitors" perspective and believe that a healthy dose of humility is mandatory on a project where we're all volunteers. But having a non-WMF face for external communication is not a terrible idea. How we'd establish a legislative body is beyond me (ranked voting, perhaps?). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're basically librarians. I'd rather see a title like "Chief Librarian of English Wikipedia". Fewer political overtones. We are a "free knowledge" movement but that should be the limit of our politics as a group. Overall, though, like I say below, I'd rather not see Wikipedians being further distracted away from the usual project work so they can go legislate or vote on every policy change. Direct democracy, as cool as it sounds, isn't tenable, especially in a project where we need a lot more active editors. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been looking at his last edits in mainspace. As far as I can tell, it was this in 2012. Since then it has been a few comments on talkpages and latterly his own userspace subpage which arguably is an attack-page on core policies of en.wiki. Seems a good case can be made for WP:NOTHERE JMWt (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The stuff about NPOV taking a stance against pseudoscience because of Mahrer in 2017, or recent activist journalism is just factually wrong, isn't it. The earliest versions of that page, still preserved over on Nostlagia Wiki, start off with a letter from Jimmy Wales and then there is immediately a whole debate about how to do a neutral presentation of pseudoscientific concepts. This predates the version of the page that Sanger is calling the "original" version. Somewhat sad to see that a founder can't appreciate the good that the project has done. Maybe with any creative endeavor, a creator is prone to focus on the gap between what is and what could be. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC) Edit: nobody has to resign or identify themselves, especially not right now. People are losing their jobs just for disagreeing with the current president. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple family members sent me his words in TFP. Most of his ideas read like those of someone who hasn't participated on the project in two decades (which is not necessarily a bad thing). However, there's a substantial measure of naivety in rejecting foundational maintenance standards like the RSP blacklist. I think we should reconsider some possibly partisan deprecations, but in no world should The Onion or–heaven forbid–Wikipedia be cited on the project. Indefinite blocks are crucial in addressing both low-level but high-burden vandals and longstanding rabble-rousers alike. And, of course, these blocks are "indefinite", not "infinite"–as there has always been an appeal process. Perhaps more transparency and some democratization in appeals could benefit us, but I've felt that the community handles such things fairly well. As for the mandatory IDing, Sanger's own words seem to suggest that "canceling for thee, but not for me" may be an intended outcome. I think he genuinely wants to improve the project. However, I find it unlikely that his theses will gain traction with many of those who are willing to give the time and effort necessary to maintain a free and open encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Related discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2#Wikipedia:THESIS1. Gotitbro (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The speech wars come for Wikipedia from Politico. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we switch from "Hello IP!" to "Hello TA!"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VPWMF#Update: two weeks more to prepare for the change, we've decided to roll temp accounts out on October 21st and communicate more about the change. @Bri, @HaeB, thanks for mentioning it in this issue! I will gladly help you prepare a more detailed note in the next one, to make sure that people not only aren't surprised, but also know how to deal with temp accounts efficiently. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Sanger is reasonably considered an outsider and thus is bringing an outsider's views, which on a basic level I welcome, and we should see more of such. That said, following is my first blush take of Sanger's ideas:

1. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8 are totally out of the question for me. In my estimation as a longtime editor, they are just bad ideas. And I suspect Elon Musk and his ilk froth at the mouth over 6. No, Elon, you are not getting that information. No, no, no. I have always supported transparency in government, but this is not government, and there is no "government force" protection for our officers. On the other hand, I would encourage voluntary transparency, and would consider that courageous.
2. On 4, perhaps Wikipedia could do a better job on presentation of other perspectives, but I also think an encyclopedia should reflect the prevailing view on what is factual or is predominantly held to be true at the time it is "printed" (i.e. media is a product of its time). Extensive coverage of minority positions due to them maybe eventually having more weight is prospective. And we don't do prospective writing. We write based on current knowledge and prevailing views. That is what an encyclopedia is. That all said, does Wikipedia have a Western bias? If you mean English Wikipedia, yes, and that's because English is a language that dominates the West. Good luck getting English writers to magically think and write outside Western perspectives. If you really want to talk about bias, though, the true bias of all of Wikipedia is corporate bias. As corporates swallow up most of the media we depend on for sourcing, we are unfortunately going to tend to reflect their POV, which is anti-labor and anything else not approved of by corporate owners. As a movement, we need ways to counterbalance this.
3. On 5, I am open-minded to a community-wide review of IAR. I've come to appreciate that we have policies and guidelines and the expectation they be followed, as this helps lead to a cohesive, coherent overall product. Not following them on purpose should be considered extraordinary. Abrogating a policy or guideline outside of community consensus for that abrogation should be frowned upon. At the same time, we should have clear avenues and directions for challenging policies and guidelines... especially guidelines. So, if an editor defiantly wishes to write against a guideline, we can tell them: "Follow the guideline, or challenge the guideline – those are your only two choices. You may not ignore them."
4. 7 actually sounds like a cool idea, although I don't think it should be a bare numerical rating but rather a set of ratings based on various factors we consider important, with the examples of "Well-sourced?" or "Balanced presentation?". But definitely no written feedback should be allowed as part of this – that would be a duplicative mess and a moderation nightmare. People should as always be directed to an article's talk page when they wish to have a discussion about an article's quality and/or how it may be improved.
5. 9 has a kind of reason to it, but this isn't a democracy, it is a meritocracy. Weighting things down with a legislative process would work against GTD (getting things done). And due to the ongoing shortage of active editors, we need Wikipedians being WP:HERE, rather than "there", legislating.
6. As for Sanger pushing 1000s to descend on Wikipedia politely, I'm guessing the audience actually enthusiastic about his overall ideas would be anything but polite and will tend to cause more damage than find ways to push for changes via consensus. The few who break through constructively are unlikely to change any consensus, of course, unless and until they are prepared to become active editors and eventually get to a place of understanding of what they are talking about on any given topic of relevance. It's like expecting hordes of the unwashed to storm libraries with an expectation of getting them to change away from their chosen classification method or alter material use policies. It's a weird call. If not unhinged.
7. Re: "If they do nothing or refuse to change, there will be consequences." I hereby LOL at such false bravado, and retort "You and what army?" Change here is slow in many areas, but there is no refusal to change. Also, this is effectively a library catering to readership. The idea we need to have continual, rip-roaring change is rather antithetical to maintaining a calm atmosphere of spreading knowledge and evolving ways to enhance that. We are a body of thinkers and teachers. This is not sport. And we shall not kowtow to Goths, Vandals and X hooligans. Come here to work constructively, or we will (politely) show you the door.

Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, re: Grokipedia, I welcome the competition. But given the state of AI at this point, I don't see it as actual competition in the near term. No matter the compendium, if readers get a sense of not being given a factual presentation of the subject, that will cause challenges for that compendium. Wikipedia is obviously not immune from that, but unlike AI, we are or can be self-corrective. AI algorithms can be improved, but you have no human editors of a given subject discovering a problem (perhaps one AI can't detect) and then fixing it. And when Musk says "remove falsehoods and add missing context", I frankly snicker as someone who has watched Musk over the years. He is obviously wanting to apply a right-wing tilt and give a lift to pseudoscience or other widely rejected positions, just as he has done on X. He as the richest person ever wants everything to bend to his POV, and we are not doing that, and that makes him fume. Fume on, Elon. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading a lot of the responses, I've decided to slightly soften my response on Sanger's #3, which I said was out of the question. I still think getting rid of the blacklist altogether is out of the question, but I do think it makes sense to have a periodic review of blacklist entries because 1) it's always possible a media outlet has made improvements to their journalistic efforts; 2) it's always possible the initial judgment to place a media outlet on the list was not well-founded and possibly didn't have a well-rounded group of discussion participants. The bottom line is we should be as fair as we possibly can be. A placement on the list should not be irreversible. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 02:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Sanger should really get in here in the trenches and try to actually create content or improve some citations or something. I think he might find it is quite fun to attempt to create a reliable tertiary source containing the sum of all human knowledge. ☮️ jengod (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with some of it. However one point I have is that what’s viewed as “neutral” or “acceptable” may be influenced by who uses Wikipedia, which is fairly different from the world population. For example 84% of editors(2013) are men(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians#:~:text=Gender,22%20/%20100). And I guarantee you, men certainly don’t take up that much of the population lol. While I have never seen a study abt political views of Wikipedians, it could be hypothesised that perhaps there are simply more Wikipedians with those views and that shifts the bias. Bias is a reason why you should NEVER use ANYTHING as a sole source to form your views, even Wikipedia. Just like how CNN is generally factual but they are biased and you should not rely on them only for news. Zulresso! :D (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like every editor who has knowledge of the processes of en.wiki and sees this discussion to stop and think about how these ideas to fundamentally change the pillars of Wikipedia could possibly happen. Clearly writing an essay is never going to do it in the face of overwhelming community disapproval. So.. JMWt (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's the crux of the problem... fundamentally changing the pillars of Wikipedia, based on largely uninformed notions from someone not involved with Wikipedia for over 20 years. That said, there are a few useful nuggets in the mix, but certainly no "diamonds". Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 10:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One has to understand the essay within the context in 2025. It's not just an essay written by someone who wants to provoke discussion within the existing structures. It's something written by someone with a very specific agenda they've been very clear about for many years and which they've recently explained clearly on popular media. If we don't listen to that, then more fool us. JMWt (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree. At the same time, I am not the kind of person who rejects ideas due to judging the motivation of the person bringing forth the ideas. Sometimes a person with impure motivation can produce ideas worth chewing on. Even if Sanger's goal was to ruin the Wikipedia, it's still possible he has tripped on ideas that actually would improve it. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"That all said, does Wikipedia have a Western bias? If you mean English Wikipedia, yes, and that's because English is a language that dominates the West. Good luck getting English writers to magically think and write outside Western perspectives." I disagree, systemic bias (US/Europe [mostly the former], men, nerd culture and so on) is an entrenched issue that needs to be countered, the reason we have projects such as Women in Red in the first place. We of course cannot force voluntary editors to cover other topics but as a project can clearly encourage editors to do so in even more ways than we do now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we are aware of our own bias, WP:BIAS (and the average Wikipedian). There's going to be a bias with any publication. But Sanger's arguments are a red herring. I see he loves to bring up WP:AGF for any comments about himself but when your life involves grifting, there's been no more rope to believe there's good intentions for a very long time. – The Grid (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we should have editors with as many perspectives as possible editing here. When you say "systemic bias is an entrenched issue that needs to be countered", we are in agreement, not disagreement. I was speaking to a specific bias - one that will be extraordinarily difficult to overcome because English is the predominant language of the West. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the Signpost giving us a quick review of what Sanger is currently proposing. It is important that Wikipedia editors be aware of the agenda being put forward here. It is clearly far-right aligned, with the intention of promoting disinformation by undermining neutrality and factual information. (Seriously, proposing multiple articles so everyone can present their own alternate reality? Yech.) Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This Larry Sanger story has been receiving quite a lot of media attention and I finally went ahead and watched the Tucker interview. I will be commenting based on that and the proposals as briefed in the news story above.

1. "End decision-making by 'consensus.'"

The alternative would be, I guess, letting named arbitrators decide what goes in/out away from the community process [point 6]. How does this solve bureaucratic Nupedia problems for which Sanger and Jimbo created Wikipedia I am unsure.

2. "Enable competing articles."

We already have such articles, to take a leaf from the presented gripes:- Evolution and the Catholic Church, Islamic views on evolution, Jewish views on evolution, Hindu views on evolution etc. The question is how much weightage do you give to these on the main article of evolution and as an encyclopedia we simply cannot present these on equal footing with the scientific literature if the main article is under the topic of science.

3. "Revive the original neutrality policy. - Sanger argues that "The present policy on neutrality [WP:NPOV] should be revised to clarify that articles may not take sides on contentious political, religious, and other divisive topics, even if one side is dominant in academia or mainstream media."

From the interview, NPOV is the crux of Sanger's problems with enwiki. But beyond some real concerns of MOS:LABEL vios [and needless focus on controversies i.e. undue weight] at BLPs etc. in contravention of extant guidelines no less], I don't see problems with our policies as such. Editorial conduct and violations of P&G as such need to be resolved by participating in the editorial process. Even Ashley Rindsberg, whom Sanger references in the interview, realizes this when he critizes editors and the gaming of policies by them rather than the policies themselves.

4. "Abolish source blacklists."

Some RSN decisions/labels are questionable but that doesn't impeach the validity of RSP as a whole. [PS: Tucker's reaction to the list is the most funny part of the interview.]

5. "Repeal 'Ignore all rules.'"

Agree, while rookie edits and mistakes can be dismissed under such a notion. The usage of this is mostly on an ad-hoc basis for whatever one wants to do. We need to apply P&G without exceptions, standards need to be had.

6. "Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are."

Agree. For admins this can be encouraged but for ArbCom and other formal positions of authority this can be made policy.

7. "Let the public rate articles."

Agree, the Hebrew Wikipedia for instance has a public feedback form under ever article. [Also see my comment for 9.]

8. "End indefinite blocking."

Absolutely not. Certainly Sanger knows the trouble with interested government actors, PR firms and the like [as clearly stated by him multiple times in the interview], to think :that we can handle such a deluge without perma bans is fantasy.

9. "Adopt a legislative process."

We definitely can have a more participative process when advertising policy changes, banner messages simply don't cut it. Talk pages are unknown to the public and so on and so forth. This is an outreach failure (and for all the fearmongering that Ashley Rindsberg does, at least it puts things into perspective that normal people edit enwiki rather than a 'cabal' which controls it). But for all the more 'radical' changes sought by Sanger, he will have to participate in the extant processes to gain community inertia to change them, but saying that only 'named' accounts can weigh in on policy runs into the same problems as 1. Gotitbro (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am unsure if Larry Sanger is aware of this coverage/discussion, but pinging nonetheless. Gotitbro (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On 6, given the current climate and who Sanger is courting, we should consider whether we are throwing people to the wolves. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking more on lines of intercommunity and extra-community trust that such changes can bring. We cannot deny the loss of trust among editors, among editors and admins/ArbCom etc. and the loss of trust for Wikipedia [and institutions really] among the general public in recent years. Whatever be the reason for that [entrenched views, general distrust, internet rabbit holes etc.], there is a reason LLMs rather than us are gaining more legitimacy [of course we haven't been able to counter LLM problem at enwiki completely either].

  MAGA attacks are not going to stop regardless of the steps we take [and we should be willing to wear them] but thinking about the community is the first priority and such measures I think can only make it more cohesive. Gotitbro (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: 2: This is already possible via Wikipedia's support for multiple languages. If Sanger would like to start a new translation of Wikipedia into conservative-ese, he is more than welcome to. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree with much of what Sanger has written in these nine points. Much of what he supports would lead to chaos and exacerbate some of the problems he sees and wants to change - which I think many would suggest are not problems or are the lesser of two evils.

I agree that some legitimate alternate sources are blacklisted that I think should not be. Since I doubt that they all are legitimate, I think the list probably needs to be more limited, but not abolished. Some are blacklisted simply because those pursuing a point of view have convinced enough others of like mind that they should be.

Unless I am mistaken, neutral point of view allows alternate or minority views if properly sourced, may even encourage them, provided they are identified as such.

Ignore all rules should be removed. There may be exceptions to some rules or differing yet proper interpretations. Ignoring all rules is likely to lead to cover for biased editing and problem editing and cause many more, and different, problems than what Sanger suggests. It should be removed because it has gone well beyond a proper purpose of "there are exceptions to every rule" and even beyond reasonable alternative interpretations can at least be discussed. Perhaps an essay or some more moderate and properly explained guideline could be added in its place.

Exposing real names of "leaders" and contributors will inevitably lead to doxxing, threats and other unwanted and unneeded exposure. Editors and users will leave Wikipedia in droves. As much trouble as biased, incompetent, vandalistic and other types of bad, troublesome or incompetent actors are, and as much time as they waste being corrected and often eventually blocked, they are a lesser bad option that needs to be combatted than the enormous drop in edits and contributions that would occur (maybe not in sports and pop culture, but just about everything else). How many editors does Citizendium have and how fast has it grown? How many views does it get? Too few, I would venture, to be held up as a model for Wikipedia in most respects. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather from the interview, Sanger is suggesting the naming of Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) and the Checkusers not the admins or regular users/editors. He says that he is against doxxing and that if such policies are adopted, those with such rights should be allowed to voluntarily retire if they want to stick with anonyminity. This, as I elborate above, appears to be reasonable. Gotitbro (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They can all retire, and no one would dare take their places for fear of being doxxed or threatened. The fact that Sanger is against doxxing won't prevent doxxers from doxxing and certainly won't prevent threats, or worse, against revealed editors. Taking away the arbitration committee and the checkusers, which is what revealing their names would do, would hamper controlling and eliminating bad actors, POV pushers (especially skilled ones), trolls and vandals and prevent solving the most troublesome old and new problems they would create. These bad actors will be first in line to be doxxers. Eliminating such control over serious problems and people, which supporters of this position need to realize will happen, as it does in other areas of life, will degrade Wikipedia. I see no good reason and no benefit from disclosing these names and the resultant damage to Wikipedia which would inevitably take place. Are there instances that can be pointed out where arbitrators and checkusers have caused any sort of damage to the project, instead of obvious benefits to the project which have resulted from their actions? Donner60 (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but threats of doxxing only work when you don't have public faces. As I state above this could indeed engender more community and public trust. Resilience against MAGA and similar movements worldwide shouldn't hamper our own internal initiatives. Bad-faith actors are extant regardless. Though rather than online trolls et. al. what might actually precaution such moves is the existence of events such as List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia. Gotitbro (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your last point is a good one. We are in at least partial agreement, if not in entire agreement because of your last point. Threats could be made, even if not technically doxxing, if names are revealed. I have even been threatened at least twice due to edits on Wikipedia. I think checkusers tracked them down and said they were empty threats because of where they were located. We have stated our opinions and there is little, if any, reason for us to continue to discuss this point. (Not trying to preclude you from another comment but I may not further reply.) Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a good reason to single out CUs or crats. The stated reason is control over content. If I or any other editor familiar with the PAG got into a content dispute with an arb, CU or crat (that did not end up resolved after the standard BRD) I have no reason to believe that they're more likely to prevail than I am in a 3O or an RfC or whatever. If we want accountability of content, I think we should invite comment from academics in a field. Maybe get the WMF to pay some or something. How much are journal editors paid? It might be worth having verified and/or public qualifications or identities for those. Even if the community probably wouldn't want to cede the editorial process to editors the WMF hires, I'm sure we'd be open to some degree of expert involvement. Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion though not with every point in the comment. Many of today's academics and journalists are not neutral. I think that giving them power over content would be detrimental rather than an improvement. A group of Wikipedia users is likely to be more neutral overall and have views based on reliable sources and not based on certain political views. A better result is more likely to result from the present situation, even if flaws may exist. Many current academics and journalists seem to have such non-neutral and not exactly expert views these days.

I can see wanting to have some review of content since posting of some biased and erroneous content is an ever-present problem. More often than not, however, Wikipedia gets the review and control from the community and has more control over outlier and biased content and opinion as a result. A group of experts hired by a small group of people, or maybe even just one overall leader, is not likely to lead to the result desired by Alpha3031 - and probably by most others including myself as well. Experts, both identified and anonymous, already contribute to Wikipedia content and discussions and debates about it.

Also, Alpha3031 states that content disputes with an arb, CU or crat are will not necessarily end in their favor. That removes a need for procedures or actions, such as setting up a group of paid reviewers with the power to rule on content, which might turn out worse in many cases than the current situation. All this is in my opinion, of course, for what it's worth. Donner60 (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If Larry Sanger was an editor, maybe we would care. Personally, I can't fathom why we are giving him a platform here. Just ignore his nonsense. Nosferattus (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Jimbo doesn't edit either. Embyarby (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He doesn't do a lot of mainspace, but he does involve himself outside WMF-stuff, like at Talk:Will.i.am#Newer_sources_on_his_name. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference is he literally works for WMF and has an active role. He can usually be reached on his userpage about anything. Sanger has been playing this pity party since his departure (he got let go). – The Grid (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All I'm noting is that active editor status is pretty irrelevant in evaluating criticisms and proposed reforms of Wikipedia. To the extent that it is relevant: Sanger has remained active in the Wikisphere, just as Jimbo has. Embyarby (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of discussion in only a few days. I think yes, it should be a story in Signpost. As for the specific proposals, the one I like best is rating by the public. No, don't bother banning us insiders as "not" the public or otherwise carefully filtering unless the need manifests itself but yes, there should be some sort of response logger at the bottom of an article. Like, 1-5 stars for each of quality, reliability, neutrality, comprehensiveness, etc or maybe simply a thumb up or down for the whole page. If being really complicated seems a good idea, then allow ratings for each subsection. Naturally many of the public will downvote an article for being about an evil person or other evil entity; we cannot take such ratings as simple instructions on how to improve the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  funny story. i learned yesterday (at least i'm pretty sure it was yesterday) that a public rating and/or reviewing system was actually tried about 10 years ago. maybe even more than once

  ...the results were so disastrous that the system was nuked, and now all but a couple pages related to it are lost media. as in "not even in the internet archive" lost. pretty much everything that could have gone wrong did as the people rating and/or reviewing stuff were, for the most part, less likely to pass a math exam than a coelacanth, trying to use the system as a forum, children too young to be able to tell the words "july" and "pçlkmpbpppp ´~[po0kjm,mk,.l~´3." apart, or rating stuff based on the article topics instead of the articles themselves (thus, rating an article like adolf hitler a 1/5 because the dude was a bit of a stinkyhead, and not because the article sucked). apparently, less than 5% of what the people in charge of this system had to trudge through was actually useful. or it was exactly 6%. it's hard to tell consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:25, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing up this flaw specifically. That should put an end to bringing back this flawed idea. I did not mention it specifically in my comments, just left as lumped in with my general disagreement with just about everything he wrote. I did think it was likely to be an open invitation to the sorts of worthless comments and problems that were seen before. Also, it would likely distract administrators and other useful contributors from making more important contributions to Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure; must take into account such shortcomings in evaluating the checkmark evaluations. A series of ratings (style, objectivity, clarity, completeness, whatever) might help a bit in teasing out the real meaning. When a reader also gives an opinion in words, editors mustn't expect a reasoned argument, much less the opening of a clarifying dialog. The space that solicits verbal opinions doesn't need wading through; a quick scan is more than enough as the purpose of the solicitation is at least as much to give the impression that someone is listening, as in hope of actually finding pearls of wisdom in the probable stream of drivel. Neither a questionnaire nor a list of checkmarks can give us a precise or definite answer; it's a rough indicator of public opinion where we have none now. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article feedback for the community's evaluation. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Larry Sanger succeeded in making Wikipedia editors bicker with each other. --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 16:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not like that's hard to do. 😀 Anomie⚔ 17:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  green or red bell peppers? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Chili peppers. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Red Hot Chili Peppers? 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A2E:3F49:20E:BBE6 (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Good Place? Anomie⚔ 00:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Sanger is wrong mostly, but I think his points about consensus, NPOV, canvassing, and meatpuppetry should give people pause. There are tons of major problems on enwiki besides a growing backlog which is the good kind of problem. Sockpuppetry is one, and stealth canvassing is another, which creates an asynchronous disarmament problem, and we should think hard about consensus and NPOV and whether Wikipedia has forgotten to give the loyal opposition its requisite thrown bone. Sanger is right that NPOV had writing for the opponent and giving minority views their due baked in and that fell by the wayside. Brigading is a real problem. Consensus isn't and shouldn't be a vote, and a 60-40 situation with equally strong, opposed, policy-abiding arguments is not a consensus. That is a NOCON STATUSQUO, and a compromise situation. Offwiki critics and their relationship to the people who edit Wikipedia is a problem. Offwiki critics providing error corrections or soliciting volunteers to do good work could be a good thing and a solution to backlogs and help with NPOV. I don't see why the project is served by ignoring all these problems, though many of them I would not solve the way Sanger proposes. Multiple versions of an article is a dizzying prospect. It is barely possible to keep a handle on the existing corpus with watchlists and RC and ClueBot helping. And many aspects of Wikipedia suffer from poor participation and barely function for large stretches of time. Much easier to actually reinforce and strengthen RS and NPOV. More difficult in some ways because it is a culture and a mindset. Andre🚐 02:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is by far the most cogent analysis I've seen of this. I don't think many people fully support or fully reject his proposals (and if they do, 9/10 times it's probably a POV-tell), but it's absolutely mystifying to me that so many people don't see that blowing up, throwing a tantrum, attempting to take a chainsaw to the page, or hurling smug insults is literally the worst way for the community to respond. Just10A (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that as a principal, one should never fully agree or disagree with someone else without there being a red flag. In doing so, one can completely remove empathy for the other side and not come to useful conclusions. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I am so confused why Sanger's efforts to completely eradicate the foundations of Wikipedia doesn't qualify as Sockpuppetry. Guylaen (talk) 06:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ultimately, he's at least having the decency to use his own account for all of this, as registered editors in support of him seem to have the kind of understanding about wikipedia's basic functions that he (somehow) lacks. that said, he's admitted to very, very public kinds of canvassing, and i'm only waiting until he decides to make legal threats, so it's probably only a matter of time until an archmage casts riah nworgni... or an admin blocks him, whichever is easier consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope to see a follow-up on The Return of Larry Sanger in the next issue. Plenty of WP-discussions in various places, some EW, coverage from Breitbart etc to summarize. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The Larry Sanger stuff is some good drama, but the effects of governments on Wikipedia seems much more pressing to me. Some of these requests are surely in good faith, and some surely are not. We especially need to talk about how many accounts have been "actually affected". If you look at the reports, there's a third statistic that's not included in this write up: the number of accounts notified is a good deal smaller than the number of accounts affected. If you're a heavily active editor, it's not a stretch to say you might be one of the non-notified accounts. And unless I missed something, Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and Caesar DePaço are not included in these reports, which indicates that this only covers a subset of total compliance and affected accounts. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]