Wikipedia might have problems, but at this point larry sangar is just desperate to try and reinvent wikipedia with him at the center to stay relevant. He's started an excessive number of wikipedia like sites with some variable changed, some pretty silly like the cryptocurrency one where it was intended you could vote for what the truth was using your crypto wallet (they never actually implemented it but what could possibly go wrong in a plutocracy?). He's just desperately throwing stuff at the wall praying that something sticks.

Like all things, there will probably come a day where wikipedia is disrupted by some new kid on the block, but i highly doubt sanger will be at the center of it.

> Larry Sanger (who is right wing) rebelled against it and started his own project

Again?

Sanger has tried multiple times to launch competitors to Wikipedia -- Citizendium, Digital Universe, Infobitt, Everipedia, now something he calls the "Encyclosphere", apparently. None of them have been successful.

Nigel Farage resigns from his party saying it's become overrun by racists.

Robert Bernstein criticizes Human Rights Watch that he founded himself.

I guess they're just bitter right? Why consider anything they are actually saying?

For the record: I actually like Wikipedia and don't really see so much what Larry is talking about. I participated in starting articles on Wikipedia back in 2004, which have now grown and added a lot of useful information. But I'd like to hear him out.

The point is very much that we've now heard him out on about half a dozen different occasions and he's repeatedly shown an inability to deliver.

Its not that Sanger is criticizing wikipedia, its that his criticism isn't particularly insightful (imo) and its been getting repetitive.

Like all monopolies, criticism of wikipedia is essential to wikipedia. There is very little effective competition to wikipedia so criticism is important lest it becomes complacent. Sanger is just failing to deliver.

And it's that Sanger really isn't the expert on Wikipedia (or on community-building in general) that he claims to be. Sure, he was involved with Wikipedia in its early days -- but that was 20 years ago. That experience is largely irrelevant in commenting on Wikipedia as it exists today, because the organization has evolved significantly over that time, and he hasn't been involved in that process.