That's not the point, the point is he's using the "co-founder" title to imply that he's had significant contribution to making Wikipedia what it is known and loved for today, which is not true. Sure he was a founder, but the comment above was simply specifying what his contribution was, which is barely anything compared to what the others have contributed, like adding your name to a group project you barely had helped with.
Calling his contributions "barely anything" is historically illiterate.
Larry Sanger coined the name Wikipedia, proposed the wiki format that made it possible, drafted the foundational policies, including Neutral Point of View, and was the one who publicly announced the project's launch. These aren't minor footnotes; they're the bones of what Wikipedia became.
Despise the man all you want. That's your right. But retroactively minimizing someone's documented contributions because you dislike who they became is motivated reasoning, not history.
Your feelings about a person don't rewrite the record of what they did.
Founding something isn't a popularity contest, and historical fact doesn't bend to who we'd prefer to credit.
You have not watched that Hank Green video, defend the grifter all you want. 11 months work vs 2 decades of work, but sure he deserves as much credit as the people who's worked on it for 2 decades
6
u/Ishigami_Yu_ Jun 28 '26
But the comment you're replying to has not mentioned anything that was false, Hank Green has a great video about this.