Larry Sanger banned from posting
Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, was banned from posting after forming a group specifically formed to address the concerns discussed here. I feel this is incredibly relevant but I don't see it mentioned. Can I add a note and a link? Here is one. If "we" don't like the NY Post there are many others as this is factual. https://nypost.com/2026/06/22/tech/left-leaning-wikipedia-blocked-founder-from-editing-site-after-he-campaigned-to-make-it-more-balanced/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-37267-33 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Other sources give a different story, about how he was banned for breaking a very specific rule. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sources give a different story. The New York Post is not reliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Case to point it says he was not told why he was banned, he was. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Reliable sources give a different story. The New York Post is not reliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
- Right now, Wikipedia is in the public spotlight over this news story. People want our side of the story. A response that sounds like "We can do whatever we want.", or "We decide what is true." could devastate Wikipedia's credibility in a time when the world is in desperate need of unbiased information. Algr (talk) 03:31, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
- That isn't what's happening here. What's happening here is that you are being told that the New York Post is unreliable because of poor adherence to facts such as the claim that Sanger was not told why they were blocked. They were. It's because they posted links to a !vote discussion about their proposed wikiproject on Twitter and then went on Indian TV to ask for Hindu Nationalists to brigade Wikipedia. And so, no, we won't use the New York Post as a source here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2026 (UTC)