User talk:QuackGuru/C

Proposed draft
Should we replace the current version with the proposed draft?

Option A (proposed draft)

 * Yes, as proposer. I support replacing the current version with the proposed draft. There are many discrepancies or imprecise content in the lede and body. This proposal includes replacing misinformation in the lede and body and restoring the citations and the wikilinks to the lede. The current version contains inaccurate content in the lede that is not supported by any source in the body. After the rewritten content was challenged, no verification was presented. The lede is poorly written because it contains opaque or ambiguous content, while the proposed draft is accurate and succinct. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Also see MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." The first sentence is not concise and it does not include other accomplishments about Sanger.

Option B (current version)

 * Oppose current version per 'Comments on proposed draft' below.

Option C (new proposal)
(place third option here)

Comments on proposed draft
Several examples of the current issues:

See current wording in this article: Sanger later grew disillusioned with Wikipedia,[26]… It is misleading and vague. The sentence goes on to state: …saying by mid-2001 its community… It is a WP:SYN violation to combine different statements in this way.

See news article: "Freed from Nupedia’s constraints, Wikipedia took off quickly. Yet to hear Sanger’s version of events, things started to go off the rails just months after it was launched."

See accurate content in proposed draft: Wikipedia grew rapidly, but according to Sanger only months after it was launched things began to go astray.[41] That's accurately written content.

See current wording in this article: While studying at college, Sanger developed an interest in using the internet for education and joined the online encyclopedia Nupedia as editor-in-chief in 2000. It was not because Sanger had an interest in the Internet that he "joined" Nupedia. He also did not "join" Nupedia. He started Nupedia.

See accurate content in proposed draft: In college he became interested in the Internet and its potential as a publishing outlet.[7]

See accurate content in proposed draft: Seeking employment online, Sanger joined Bomis to start an online encyclopedia called Nupedia[8] as editor-in-chief in 2000.[9]

See current wording in this article: Besides the Internet, Sanger's interests have been focused mainly on philosophy—in particular epistemology, early modern philosophy, and ethics. This is fails verification content. I can't find any source in the body where it supports he focused "mainly" on philosophy outside of his interest in the Internet. The part "...early modern philosophy, and ethics..." also fails verification.

See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger's philosophical interests has focused on epistemology.[7]

See current wording in this article: Wales had interacted with Sanger on mailing lists.[12]

See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger had first come into contact with Wales in 1994 when he subscribed to Wales' mailing list entitled "Moderated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy."[8] Also see Wales, who had gotten the idea from DMOZ, wanted it to be a free-content encyclopedia, using volunteer editors.[33]

See current wording in this article: He founded Citizendium in 2006 to compete with Wikipedia. This is mentioned in the lede but not the body. Sanger did not start Citizendium "to compete" Wikipedia.

See accurate content in proposed draft: The issue over the accuracy of Wikipedia's articles led Sanger to unveil plans for a new wiki-based encyclopedia called Citizendium,[75] a "citizens' compendium of everything".[76]

See accurate content in proposed draft: Sanger started an alternative online encyclopedia to Wikipedia called Citizendium in 2006.[15] The body states Sanger started a pilot version of Citizendium on October 17, 2006.[85] Citizendium officially launched on March 25, 2007.[56]

I also added new content to the lede and body:

One example of the new content in the lede: "He ended his participation in Wikipedia in 2002 because of a lack of quality control.[12]" This new content replaces "...but became increasingly disillusioned with the project and left it in 2002."

One example of the new content in the body: "After a few failed attempts to assemble experts to review articles, he eventually left Wikipedia in January 2003.[18]"

You may be thinking why I didn't revert the changes. I tried before. I was reverted by.

There are numerous more examples of problematic content. For example, on 19:06, 17 August 2019 content about Critics of child-porn allegation was added. But there are no "Critics" accusing Sanger and it is a blog website. The content fails verification and the source is unreliable.

Another recent example: on 19:55, 17 August 2019, added the co-founder debate to the lede. The previous month on 05:42, 28 June 2019, user stated: "There is no reason to mention Wales in the lead. This is an article about Sanger and what he did, and the lead should focus on that. Also, mentioning Wales introduces the founder drama, but the lead should not focus on that." On 05:46, 28 June 2019 user John M Wolfson agreed it should not be in the lede: "...there's no reason to bring it up in the lead...".

There is also the problem with incoherent wording. See Larry Sanger. This section disorganised and hard to follow. It also contains WP:SYN violations. For example, see "While such issues..." and see "Sanger responded to these trends...".

Unsupported weasel words or misleading weasel words such as "accused" should be replaced with more neutral words. See Manual of Style/Words to watch. See MOS:ACCUSED. One of the words to look out for is "accused".

Numerous news articles were deleted and replaced with a book written by Andrew Lih. The entire book is not freely available to read online, while the news articles are freely available to read. I also noticed that there is the content cited to the book that fails verification. For example, see "At the Wizards of OS conference in September 2006, Sanger announced the launch of a new wiki-based encyclopedia called Citizendium—short for "citizens' compendium"—as a fork of Wikipedia.[54] " Sourced content should not be replaced with failed verification.

Because anyone can edit any page, there are people who write skewed articles. Opaque or overgeneralised content in the lede is counterintuitive for our readers who may be unfamiliar with the subject. There is currently content in the lede as well as the body that is misleading or biased. I think it would be best to expunge the content not found any source. Please review Wikipedia core policies WP:V and WP:NOR, as well as WP:RS. It is best to restore the citations in the lede for this article, especially when cited content is being replaced with unsourced biased content.

See MOS:LEADCITE: "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." The current lede does not conform to Verifiability and other policies.

Content likely to be challenged must have an inline citation, according to MOS:LEADCITE. This is not my rule. This is Wikipedia's consensus. Good articles contain citations in the lede such as Lily Cole and Bomis. It is better to eliminate guesswork and stick to verifiable content. This is best accomplished with inline citations in the lede for articles that have a history of problematic content. There is a lot to read for this proposal because there is a lot of problematic content.

<!--
 * User:QuackGuru/Draft review



<!--

The Fram controversy involved the Wikimedia Foundation banning the English Wikipedia administrator Fram on June 10, 2019 from editing the English Wikipedia for one year, consistent with the Terms of Use. This was the first ever temporary partial ban implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety division. The Wikimedia Foundation stated that Fram was banned in order to uphold "respect and civility" on the site. The Fram ban raised issues about constitutional order and project governance within the community.

The reaction from the Wikipedia community was swift and intense. There were Wikipedia administrators and editors contemplated going on a strike as a way to express disapproval. A letter from the Arbitration Committee stated in part: "If Fram's ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF's new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement's principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."



Background
Fram started editing Wikipedia in 2005 and was appointed as a Wikipedia administrator in 2007. Fram has been a very productive editor with over 200,000 edits.

Fram had been known for strictly enforcing editing policies such as copyright infringements, and on occasion for being disrespectful toward others on Wikipedia. 11 Wikipedians claimed that Fram harassed them or someone else on Wikipedia, according to The Signpost article written by Wikipedia editor Smallbones. The article was deleted by a Wikipedian due to concerns that it breached Wikipedia's rule on content on living persons.

Fram was cautioned at least twice by e-mail from the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety division regarding his behavior. On May 4, 2019, Fram told to the Arbitration Committee in part to "crawl into a corner and shut up" or "collectively resign."

Since 2012, Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety division has implemented 32 permanent global bans. However, this was the first ever temporary partial ban. Fram was not banned from editing Wikimedia Commons. Historically, the Wikimedia Foundation has not interfered with the people who use and edit Wikipedia. Disciplinary action against misbehavior on the English Wikipedia are usually decided and dealt with by the editorial community as well as by the Arbitration Committee, the 15-editor group appointed by editors within the community.

Overview
On June 10, 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation banned the English Wikipedia administrator Fram from editing the English Wikipedia for one year. Later on that same day, the Wikimedia Foundation described that the ban had stemmed from complaints from Wikipedia editors. The Wikimedia Foundation stated to BuzzFeed News that Fram was banned in order to uphold "respect and civility" on the site. They also stated "Uncivil behavior, including harassment, threats, stalking, spamming, or vandalism, is against our Terms of Use, which are applicable to anyone who edits on our projects." The Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust and Safety division stated, "local communities consistently struggle to uphold not just their own autonomous rules but the Terms of Use." This suggests that one of the reasons the Wikimedia Foundation thought it was necessary to take action was because the Arbitration Committee had not taken action.

The following day after the ban on June 11, 2019, Fram stated on his Wikimedia Commons page that he had been given two prior "conduct warnings" from the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety division for his rude behavior toward other editors on Wikipedia. He also stated that the Wikimedia Foundation told him that the reason for banning him stems from a single comment to the Arbitration Committee, stating "Fuck Arbcom." Fram wrote, once he had been cautioned of his conduct any "flimsy justification" would result in a ban. "I'm not a model admin or editor." … "But I believe I was steadily improving. But that's not for [English-language Wikipedia] to decide apparently," Fram stated. Fram stated he was actually banned because of his history of disputes with the Wikimedia Foundation regarding the specifics of software upgrades to the site. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales pleaded with the Wikipedia community to avoid doing anything hasty.

According to BuzzFeed News, there was no trial. In accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's own safety code, they do not "disclose the complainer nor the complaint." The Wikipedia administrator Floquenbeam unblocked Fram, stating "I believed the unblock was necessary to force the WMF to take that overwhelming community support for an unblock seriously," in an email to BuzzFeed News. On June 12, 2019 the Wikimedia Foundation blocked Fram again. That same day, the Wikipedia administrator Bishonen unblocked Fram, arguing that the Wikimedia Foundation began a wheel war, which involves at least one administrator's action is reversed by another administrator.

Constitutional crisis
The two fundamental themes inciting the discussion are as follows: How ought the Wikimedia movement handle matters of harassment and to what extent is the English Wikipedia community autonomous? As a consequence, the discussion surrounding the Fram situation has led to a constitutional crisis. The underlining question brought up by the ban has to do with why the Arbitration Committee and the Wikipedia community had not addressed the Fram situation. Enforcement of the Terms of Use by the Wikipedia Foundation's office action, initially resulted in more questions being asked than there were answers. Editors within the community stated that the Wikipedia Foundation's Trust and Safety division has from time to time forwarded complaints to the Arbitration Committee. The Wikipedia Foundation stated to the Wikipedia community that it could not forward the complaints to the Arbitration Committee in this particular situation because of "privacy provisions," and that Fram commented to the Arbitration Committee "Fuck ArbCom," lending to "the appearance of a conflict of interest."

Sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube generally use a top-down model for rules governing content. However, contributors to Wikipedia have long thought it is best to decide for themselves what constitutes incivility. If the Wikimedia Foundation controlled Wikipedia like other sites controlled their contributors, it would dismantle the encyclopedia, is an area of concern. Jimmy Wales stated, "This is not about individual people, this is a question about our constitutional order. This is not about this specific situation, but a much more important and broader question about project governance." An experienced Wikipedian stated to Slate's Stephen Harrison, "It's been tradition that our communities are by and large self-governing, except for issues around child protection, threats of suicide, threats of violence, and legal matters." Considering that these four classifications are not related to the Fram situation, many within the community believed that the Wikimedia Foundation overstepped its authority.

Wikipedia community
The reaction from the Wikipedia community was swift and intense. Within an hour following the ban, Wikipedia administrators had posted dozens of comments on their noticeboard asking for an explanation. There were editors in the Wikipedia community that expressed anger at the Wikimedia Foundation for not providing specifics and believed that Fram was not worthy of being banned. Since the Wikimedia Foundation originally explained the steps involved in banning editors but did not provide a specific explanation for the ban in this particular situation, there was speculation over what may have led to Fram's ban. Outrage in the Wikipedia community continued two weeks following the ban. There were Wikipedia administrators and editors contemplated going on a strike as a way to express disapproval.

The Wikipedia administrator Risker was worried that the Wikimedia Foundation did a spectacular and unprecedented move without discussing it in a customary manner. "It comes across as a FUD [fear, uncertainty, and doubt] campaign: we'll temporarily ban people who did something wrong according to rules we haven't shared, but we won't tell you what they did, what can be done to prevent similar actions, or whether we'll change the [unshared] rules again without telling you. This is why even people who don't like Fram, and even those who think Fram was behaving unacceptably, are having a hard time with this ban. Bluntly put, I feel much less safe working on a Wikimedia project today than I did a week ago, because one of the most fundamental understandings I had about working here has now been proven wrong," Risker wrote, in June 2019.

The intense reaction to the banning of Fram from the Wikipedia community is partly due to Wikipedia started prior the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the community has previously upheld a firm self-governing existence. Many within the community stated that the outcome for Fram should be determined by the consensus among editors rather than by Wikipedia's office action. A letter from the Arbitration Committee stated in part: "If Fram's ban—an unappealable sanction issued from above with no community consultation—represents the WMF's new strategy for dealing with harassment on the English Wikipedia, it is one that is fundamentally misaligned with the Wikimedia movement's principles of openness, consensus, and self-governance."

Wikipedia commenters
On June 11, 2019, ReclaimTheNet's Didi Rankovic stated, "Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) was so short on details that it prompted accusations of a lack of transparency. A serious accusation, in fact, given the proclaimed nature of the organization, and the expectation of its many contributors."

On June 27, 2019, BuzzFeed News's Joseph Bernstein stated, "Unmotivated by profit and maintained by a volunteer army of idealists, Wikipedia has so far escaped the fate of the other user-generated content giants, now locked in public, years-long, brutally specific battles over content policies and moderation. But now, with one decision, the Wikimedia Foundation seemed to have plunged the project into the familiar world of strikes and suspensions, martyrdom and harassment. It finds itself in the painful position that the YouTubes and Twitters of the world have been unable to escape: in open conflict with some of its most devoted users, without whom its scale and success would be unimaginable, but whose sometimes toxic culture threatens its long-term health."

On July 2, 2019, Slate's Stephen Harrison stated, "Search Wikipedia for WP:FRAM, a shortcut to the project namespace that exists behind the encyclopedia articles, and you’ll find a discussion about Fram’s ban that is now more than 470,000 words—longer than the novel A Game of Thrones."