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.
There is clearly some extreme bias on Wikipedia when they can’t even follow this very normal and regularly practised rule
Wikipedia also has a well-known and well-exercised rule called the Snowball Clause. Basically, if consensus is clear early, don’t waste others’ time or let further harm occur while you’re waiting for a procedure to reach a foregone conclusion.
In the ban discussion, you can see a clear consensus developing very early that Sanger was, by his own admission on external platforms, NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. He further doubled down on his position in the discussion thread for his own banning, and even intimated that he was rejoining Wikipedia with the express purpose of gathering enough meatpuppets to change Wikipedia’s policies. The Snowball Clause is even mentioned in that discussion; basically, had Sanger and his meatpuppets been allowed to continue to edit for those three days, the damage to the encyclopedia could have been significant.
They literally gave him three days.
What else were they supposed to do? Give him a get-out-of-jail-free card for a procedural mistake that they already rectified?
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
To do what? They had established that he was performing activities that needed to be stopped, he’s not owed more time to do those activities in.
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.
youre right, execute the editors.
edit: /s