Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sweepi | Hacker News Reader

Well there is a lot more, e.g.:

After that, Larry Sanger remarked: "What people don't realize, actually, is the number of people who are actually at work on Wikipedia on any given day is not really that enormous. It's more in the hundreds or low thousands, not in the millions. Well, there's a lot of people in India. There's a lot of educated people in India, right? There's a lot more educated people in India than there are in, say, England. Just due to sheer numbers, you can field a lot of good writers on Wikipedia, and if you quite simply learn how to play the game..." (33:54).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Adminis...

View on HN

You cut out the context, making it look like he was trying to bias the website.

The part you left out was that he was asked by the interviewer how Indians who felt the site was biased against them could fight the bias:

> When asked about how "Indians and Hindus who feel there is this bias" could "fight it actively", Larry Sanger responded:

So he’s saying that a group can combat bias on the site by participating in the site. India has a lot of educated people and therefore it wouldn’t be hard to find people to contribute. Why is this so controversial?

He's inviting people to participate in brigading Wikipedia according to a list of targets he publishes

Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad.

To be clear: it would be equally bad if you swapped left and right in that sentence. I don't know if his assessment of the issues with Wikipedia is correct, but his solutions aren't what you propose if you want to make Wikipedia more neutral

> Ok, saying things like "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back" is pretty bad.

He’s not saying they need to “march through this institution”. He’s saying they need to learn how to navigate the increasingly Byzantine rules set up by the small number of editors so they can contribute to the site.

Why would it be bad to counter bias by bringing in people from the under-represented group? What would be permissible to you, if not bringing in people from that group to participate?

I'm trying to find the charitable read on this and I'm unable to. He's saying that it would be great to allow Hindu ethnonationalist sources, because that would open up a talent pool of Hindo ethnonationalist editors? What kind of an argument is that?

He said that in response to a leading question by the interviewer: he's saying if you think X viewpoint is being suppressed, then people with that viewpoint need to participate to counter the suppression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com