After being banned from Wikipedia, which he co-founded, Larry Sanger encountered attempts by editors to disparage him on his personal discussion page, an act often referred to as “grave dancing.” Some members contended that the reforms tied to Sanger’s ban should be abandoned, while those voicing support for him faced sneers, including jarring remarks about last year’s assassination of Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA.
Sanger noted the attack unfolded even with administrators prohibiting his responses, something he himself had requested to avoid further comments. On co-founder Jimmy Wales’ personal discussion page, editors made fun of media critiques regarding the ban and cited instances of censorship affecting Breitbart’s reporting.
Sanger’s restrictions came after a community discussion last week, where editors accused him of attempting to steer discussions through a WikiProject group that backs intellectual diversity. This initiative is rooted in insights from Sanger’s book. He first drew attention during an interview with Tucker Carlson, where he highlighted ongoing biases against conservative media like Breitbart News. This interview even prompted a response from Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who reached out to the Wikimedia Foundation, expressing concerns about perceived biases on the platform.
Following that interview, Sanger suggested circulating a letter for anyone feeling aggrieved by Wikipedia’s actions to sign, aiming to urge government officials to act. He also initiated a petition on Change.org, seeking accountability from the Wikimedia Foundation while pushing for reforms based on his previous work. His aim to establish a group called WikiProject Intellectual Diversity represents a push for reform within the Wikipedia framework. Sanger insisted that his initiatives were akin to prior approved Wiki projects and that there were no existing policies against promoting the group outside the site, which Wales somewhat concurred with while criticizing the ban.
According to site policies, banned editors can only modify their personal discussion pages. Sanger’s ban, imposed earlier, later saw an attempt at reversal, as he attempted to engage with editors about his imposed restrictions. His access to the page where he aimed to respond was canceled, aiming to deter further assaults. He hoped that being unable to reply would lessen the negative comments but found continued antagonism instead.
Comments on his page included both sympathetic support and scorn. Some editors continued their disparagements, with others accusing him of insanity. One editor, Tim Davenport, acknowledged some of Sanger’s proposals but criticized the suggestions and favored a different approach. Despite opposing the indefinite ban, Davenport’s approach didn’t seem entirely welcoming, as Sanger picked up on the underlying tensions.
In recent discussions, several editors pushed back against the ban’s rationale. One editor voiced concern that the ban discussion had been hastily concluded, while another criticized it for being mocking and cynical rather than constructive. Furthermore, several comments invoked accusations against Sanger regarding personal disclosures and doxxing, which were firmly denied by others within the community. Critiques often mentioned personal information allegations, with some claiming that Sanger’s proposals could endanger lives.
A particular editor drew comparisons to historical condemnation of Sanger’s contributions, suggesting his proposals would never materialize and implying a lasting disregard for his legacy. When confronted about those comments, one editor stated that Wikipedia isn’t intended as a platform for free speech, presenting a rather dismissive stance.
In light of the ongoing discussions, certain editors expressed that Sanger’s presence and ideas were detrimental to Wikipedia. Criticism of his proposals couldn’t be undone, with several aligning against his calls for reform. Still, others pointed to the underlying hostility, suggesting it reflects broader issues within Wikipedia surrounding dissent against its established narratives.
The dialogue around Sanger’s situation has triggered broader debates about biases and editorial practices on Wikipedia. Many express uncertainty over the future treatment of similar reform proposals and the overarching implications for those trying to challenge prevailing viewpoints on the platform.
