I’ve read most of your writing about the co-founder/founder issue & the discussion @ Mr. Wale’s talk page. Undoubtedly you’re right & you made the most coherent & extensive case that anyone could. How the Wikipedians argued & responded reminded me of … how Wikipedians argue and respond! It’s their most annoying and unhelpful habit to divert focus from the main issue, to use calls for good faith and no personal attacks as obnoxious insults, and banning people for the least legitimate reasons.

For example:

“User:Giano was just blocked today for repeatedly calling another user a liar. Larry, would you please stand down with the personal attacks and ad homeinem remarks. Whether you or Jimmy is right or wrong really isn’t to be debated here, on Wikipedia. If you’d like to debate it in real life, I’d be happy to arrange a venue at one of the conferences that I help program. Cheers”

I think user Jehochman is a complete retard (as most Wikipedians are, according to the Israeli research that you referred to in your blog the other day). You also called Jimmy Wales a liar, but how come they won’t ban you? Then how can anyone rightly correct lies & deal with liars in Wikipedia?

He first portrayed you as a troll, then being completely mistaken about the subject, & then someone who is disconnected from reality…. These were all insults/”WP:NPA” for sure, but he said them while asking you to refrain from personal attacks. And then he ended his post with “Cheers.” How does that fit? It doesn’t fit. He knows it.

All we have to learn from this dispute is that there are good reasons why we are working here at Citizendium instead of Wikipedia; we needed this extra motivation. Cheers

In an open, transparent, and democratic (in spirit and reputation, if not in fact) project, permitting freedom of speech, the leaders of the project should be open to criticism. This is why, for example, I asked on our forums whether we should apply the Citizendium’s Professionalism policy to criticism of the Editor-in-Chief. This exercised me greatly because, while I flatter myself that I have pretty thick skin, it bothered me that some really vicious attacks on me seemed to be leading some people to believe that similar attacks on others would be OK. The details here don’t matter here — the point is that I think the leaders of projects like this must be willing to be held publicly accountable for their behavior. Now, I’m not saying they shouldn’t defend themselves (although I myself have frequently not defended myself, in the interests of keeping things cool). But I am saying that, again, the leaders of projects need to be held to high standards. For that, criticism has to be allowed.

To any student of history or of political philosophy, this is perfectly obvious. As soon as criticism of those in authority is even merely discouraged, a window is opened for abuse of authority.

I specifically want to speak out against the way that Jimmy Wales has misused his authority as spokesperson for the Wikipedia project. If I — as co-founder of the project — lack the right to criticize him on his own user talk page, or some comparable forum (I’ve just tried WikiEN-L, any bets on whether the moderators will approve the message?), then how can he be held to high standards?

This sort of thing should be obvious. It’s basic democratic governance 101. I don’t claim to be brilliant in saying all this. It should be well understood by any educated citizen of a really democratic country.