I'm not sure this addresses the criticisms in his post. it's possible he's salty about the loss of power, but his complaint is that the site is systemically biased. a better rebuttal might be to show how it's not?
Yea I think this is a more accurate view. It's definitely a more thought-provoking angle, namely that people often complain about systemic bias - ignoring that pretty much all important culture, media, arts, and academia are controlled by left-leaning people.
The obvious response is the Colbert line: "reality has a liberal bias."
But that's ultimately unsatisfying, condescending and far too simplistic - I'm not sure how to effectively advocate epistemic humility to people who're convinced they're arbiters of reality.
His complaint is that they do not allow sources of claims that contest the prevailing narrative (of some topics) and that this leads to a biased view of reality.
Encyclopedias as a class have tended to be contentious since they first appeared. Diderot [0] & d'Alembert's French work started in reaction to Chambers' 1751 English work. After the first volumes appeared, in 1759 their work was suppressed by authorities for being ~~too liberal. (By 1772 they had made 28 volumes.) And they inspired the 1768 English 'answer' by Macfarquhar and Bell which became the Encyclopædia Britannica.
[0] Diderot once said: 'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.'
However the certified experts hired to contribute articles in more recent editions were selected, they tended to represent conventional opinion, and articles were kept tame enough to offend noone.
Why is Larry Sanger still trying to grab attention to himself with his old grudges? That he despises Wikipedia is not news. Heck, back when I was in writing class I wrote a comparative essay on Wikipedia and Citizendium, and this was like ten years ago, when I was learning English.
9 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 26.8 ms ] threadThe obvious response is the Colbert line: "reality has a liberal bias."
But that's ultimately unsatisfying, condescending and far too simplistic - I'm not sure how to effectively advocate epistemic humility to people who're convinced they're arbiters of reality.
Look at the Trump Phenom. He isn't hated because he's bad or ineffective or corrupt. He is hated because he seized power and Isn't a leftist.
[0] Diderot once said: 'Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.'
However the certified experts hired to contribute articles in more recent editions were selected, they tended to represent conventional opinion, and articles were kept tame enough to offend noone.