User:Larry Sanger/Why I am no longer participating in the Wikipedia project
Let me begin by making a clarification. I'm not, on this page, explaining why I resigned from the project--that has long been explained here and here. I'm explaining why I am spending virtually no time on it at all anymore. If you don't care, it's up to you to stop reading now. :-)
I have thought for a long time whether I should say the following, and how to say it. I think and hope that I have found the right approach here, one that is more explanation than criticism, and insofar as it is a criticism, I do hope it is constructive criticism. I want to say from the outset that I think that Wikipedia is still largely working, it's still an extremely fine project, and it will still probably rule the world of encyclopedias one day.
Let me begin with a little history. When I was employed in 2001 to start Wikipedia, in articulating and defending my notion of what Wikipedia should be like--factual, unbiased, well-written, and supported by a group of friendly, open people who recognize and praise good work--I have consciously, advisedly taken some people to task for edits and other behavior that struck me as contrary to this notion. This I took to be essential to my job. Now, since I was in a position of some degree of authority, even when I straightforwardly insisted that I was merely stating my opinion and not exercising editorial fiat, there were people who attacked me, my opinions, my (only very occasional) controversial decisions, and the fact that I had any authority at all.
This much was to be expected.
What happened next is that, over a period of many months, beginning around September 2001, certain of these critics began a concerted effort to criticize and undermine virtually every "management," as opposed to uncontroversial "editorial," action. (Please note, I am not claiming it was a "conspiracy," simply that it was an extended attack on the part of several different people. Nor, of course, would I count every criticism of myself as part of this "concerted effort." It also isn't part of my claim that the effort was conscious or deliberate.)
The bursting of the Internet bubble caused Bomis finally to start losing the money it needed to pay my salary. Consequently, I must now confess, when I had to quit as "organizer" of Wikipedia at the end of February 2002, that it was a relief, because very much of my time was spent in defending myself from such attacks. But why was I spending so much of my time this way?
Why, indeed? My situation put me in a terrible dilemma, one that I would not wish on anyone. On the one hand, Wikipedia is a radically open project and its success has depended and does depend on that openness. This means that the project is and should be welcoming to all sorts of people of varying abilities and motivations. That's quite as it should be. This put the obligation on me, as it does on all of us, to be generally polite, welcoming, and cooperative.
But on the other hand, also because it's open and free (in the GNU FDL sense), the project has attracted the usual sort of people on the Internet who disrupt mailing lists and Usenet newsgroups wherever they can; they're often called "trolls." It has also attracted other people, not necessarily trolls, but people who have a strong distrust and aversion to authority. (I would consider myself one of those, in fact.) When I criticized such people's behavior, my criticisms were often thrown back in my face resentfully, and over the months I made several enemies.
As a result, there is a small body of literature bashing Larry Sanger, still available for the reading on Wikipedia and Meta-Wikipedia. In the beginning, in large part because of my belief that the best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, I tried to do just that. This was difficult, though, because as a leader of a large project, until a given troll became serious, publicly visible problem, if that person happened to have a few reasonable days or moments, and posted something very reasonable-sounding, I might seem to be obligated, as people often are in polite, ongoing Internet disputes, to reply.
Moreover, I could hardly remove this harrassing material and retain much credibility as someone who is open to criticism, as every good leader must be. But the nature of wikiwikis is such that the literature is still there until it is deliberately deleted, continuing to do whatever damage it does. In mailing lists and Usenet discussions, for such material one must search the archives. On a wikiwiki, a leader must, it seems, happily accept only the existence but even the collection and highlighting of such material.
At this point, you might very reasonably say, "Well, so what? Leaders of free organizations always must and should tolerate dissent. It's healthy. Why not simply ignore the trolls?" I totally agree with that approach; I wish it were realistic in my case. If there were only a limited amount of criticism, it would have been very easy to take. But as I said, the criticism was nearly daily, often scurrilously false or outrageously misleading (so much so that it struck me as being quite deliberate), and worst of all, it seemed some people seem to have bought into it--though it seems they would have a less hostile opinion of me if they had been apprised of all the facts. That wouldn't be easy for anyone to take.
But still, I think I could have tolerated a great deal of vociferous and repeated dissent if I had an ultimate recourse--where I could say, "Enough! Let me get back to work!" But I had no such recourse, and the reason for this is different.
I had no recourse because critics in a wikiwiki environment cannot be silenced, unless they commit some other act; after all, a wikiwiki is devoted to openness and transparency. But even then their words live on, because no criticism, no matter how false or misleading, can be erased without an accusation of censorship.
This brings us nearly to the present. Of course, even now no one would mind if I were to edit articles and participate in simply building the encyclopedia. But it's now generally the case that if I attempt to do or say anything that is very controversial--certainly anything regarding Wikipedia policy and politics--I am either ignored or, more often, vociferously denounced.
I'm perfectly confident that the vast but silent majority of regulars would be happy to have me back, particularly if I didn't, let's just say, propose or say anything that gets everybody into a dither. Rest assured, I have no intentions of spending any more of my time that way.
But I also have to say that I just can't see participating in any way for a good long while now. I can't contribute either with regard to policy and (collective) management or to the improvement of articles, without myself feeling, rightly or wrongly, that at any thing I say, I will be forced into a completely ridiculous, unseemly, undignified flamefest.
To sum it up, it's no longer worth it to me to do battle on Wikipedia. I'm sorry to say this, and let's be clear: I'm not now saying that this is necessarily going to be anyone else's experience but mine. I'm explaining my own departure. But indeed, I think you might consider whether it was in response to analogous treatment or to a perceived hostile atmosphere that Michael Tinkler, Julie Kemp, and many others have dropped out or drifted away (or have threatened to do so).
Until Wikipedia seems to me more welcoming--until I feel that it won't be me nearly alone against a legion of critics whenever I dare to say anything controversial--I regret to say you won't see me here. I'd like to come back, but I can't stomach it anymore.
I leave it to you to decide what to make of all this, and whether and what if anything should be done about it. I certainly don't expect anything at all to be said or done. As I am no longer associated with the project, that is entirely up to you.