this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
420 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

85719 readers
3692 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
420
Wikipedia Cofounder Larry Sanger Banned From Site for ‘Canvassing’ (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 day ago by tonytins@pawb.social to c/technology@lemmy.world
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bread@thelemmy.club -5 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

My source is a random internet post that says it's a verified source and nobody else is allowed to edit it. Same as wikipedia.

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 12 hours ago

AI isnt a SOURCE buddy.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds like you need to read up on what Wikipedia actually allows as a reliable source before you complain about what Wikipedia actually allows as a reliable source.

[–] Bread@thelemmy.club -4 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Why do I need to read up on how a defunct project worked?

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"defunct" 😂

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

If Wikipedia was truly defunct, the idiot right wouldn't be trying to destroy or commandeer it.

[–] Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 12 hours ago

Because it isn't defunct. It is the biggest source of knowledge that is the modern equivalent of the Library of Alexandria. So it is clear you need to read up on it.

[–] antonim@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

dėfŭnct', a. Dead (the ~, way of mentioning a particular dead person), no longer existing. [f. L ᴅᴇ(functus p.p. of fungi perform) dead]

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Edited by H. W. Fowler and F. G. Fowler, based on The Oxford Dictionary. Fifth edition (1964). Revised by E. McIntosh. Reprint 1972.