Post

https://mobile.twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/status/1312654926343008256

More from @lsanger

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Oct 29

Grokipedia v0.1 launched 24 hours ago with nearly 900,000 articles. I ran a test comparing it to Wikipedia on ten controversial topics. The results were striking, and suggest Grokipedia might actually have a shot. 👇

My review of Grokipedia has dropped, @ElonMusk 👀 larrysanger.org/2025/10/grokip…

Grokipedia has the opportunity to be much better than Wikipedia. Let's see if they can pull it off.

Read 6 tweets

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Oct 28

Well, it’s here. Let’s have a look!

I guess I’ll begin by looking at the article on the one subject about which I am the world’s greatest and most authoritative expert:

grokipedia.com/page/Larry_San…

I can correct some errors out right out the gate. I'll start there:

"He resigned in 2002, citing unsustainable funding, dilution of editorial standards, and failure to maintain neutrality as anonymous editing allowed ideological influences to undermine the project's original vision of impartial knowledge dissemination."

I resigned because I was laid off, because Bomis couldn't pay me (or any of the other new hires). I *did not* (it is factually incorrect) leave because I cited dilution of editorial standards, or failure to maintain neutrality. That's just not the case.

Read 38 tweets

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Oct 23

I've been talking with investor and finance commentator @PeterSchiff. Oh, boy.

He's yet another famous person with a beef against the Wikipedia article about himself. This article in question is the first result that comes up when you Google "Peter Schiff":

And it's a doozy. 🧵 👇en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sch…

As Schiff tells it, a government investigation against his bank turned up nothing; but the investigation resulted in the liquidation of the bank (as you might imagine). But the Wikipedia article simply says, "regulators liquidated the bank, and Schiff paid $300,000 in fines," yet the investigation turned up nothing—and the Wikipedia leaves this crucial detail out. How can he have been fined if he was not guilty? Strange. The article does make him look guilty. What gives?

Schiff claims, to the contrary, that:

(1) *He* did not pay anything. The bank did.
(2) The $300,000 that the bank paid was essentially an administrative fee, paid out of its liquidation estate. It seems the bank's annual license renewal application had been rejected by regulators, so the bank was operating without a license—unknowingly, because the regulators never informed the bank of this rejection.
(3) The liquidation of the bank was necessary due to the investigation and the subsequent, misleading reporting. This destroyed trust in the bank, naturally.
(4) The liquidation of the bank was not a punishment for wrongdoing; Schiff maintains that government action plus bad reporting about it destroyed the bank.
(5) The government investigation found *no* evidence of tax evasion or money laundering. There had been mere groundless suspicions, as far as the government uncovered.

Read 7 tweets

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Oct 16

Historic news for global Anglicanism today!

- The majority of Anglicans worldwide are, as of today, officially disaffiliated from the Church of England.
- GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference) has declared itself the Global Anglican Communion.
- The Global Anglican Communion (GAC) will have its own Council of Primates, which will elect a chairman, a *primus inter pares* (first among equals)—whose role will supersede that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
- There is "only one foundation of communion, namely the Holy Bible"—there is now no official, institutional inclusion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference (of Anglican bishops in communion with the Church of England), etc., which have "failed to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion."

Of particular historical interest:

"As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion."

In other words, the GAC bishops are essentially stating that, because the Church of England and allied provinces (such as the Episcopal Church in the United States) have abandoned "the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion," they have abandoned Anglicanism—the "Anglican Communion"—itself.

Those provinces that *have not* abandoned historic Anglicanism—the GAFCON provinces, including the ACNA—are the only genuine Anglican Communion.

The Church of England may claim to be the institutional successor/inheritor of the mantle of the Anglican Church, but in point of fact, quite regardless of such institutional relationship, it has in fact *abandoned* the far more important mantle, namely, that of "doctrine and discipline."

The Global Anglican Communion now represents global, legitimate Anglicanism.

Read 5 tweets

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Oct 6

Mormonism (LDS) is not a Christian denomination. There, I said it. The reasons for this are obvious to all who understand the basics of both religions. The theological disagreements matter and are as fundamental as with paganism. 🧵

We should love and pray for our Mormon brothers and sisters, but we *must not* include them in ecumenical movements. This is not because we hate them but because we love God and his pure doctrine above all. We must not dignify Mormonism as anything like Christianity—else we undermine the latter.

Fundamental differences:
1. Mormons hold that God the Father was once an ordinary man.
2. They reject the Trinity.
3. They hold that Jesus was not eternally existent and brothers with Satan.
4. Mormonism teaches a complicated doctrine of salvation by elaborate works.

Read 6 tweets

Larry Sanger

@lsanger

Sep 29

I am nailing Nine Theses to the door of @Wikipedia. This has been my project for the last nine months. There has never been a thoroughgoing Wikipedia reform proposal—this is the first. If it doesn't work, we need to organize an alternative. 🧵

Read:

Wikipedia could change. It's not impossible.

But only if you make a lot of noise both on social media and on Wikipedia itself. The current narrative is controlled by a few hundred people. What if 1000s (politely) descended on Wikipedia?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larr…

These are, in fact, very reasonable, commonsense proposals from anybody's point of view. We can put pressure on Wikipedia at all levels to adopt them. If they do nothing or refuse to change, there will be consequences.

Read 15 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Larry Sanger

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @lsanger

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!