Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger blocked from editing Wikipedia

Immediate reason for the block

• Multiple comments point to a specific incident: the cofounder promoted a “WikiProject Intellectual Diversity” and used off‑wiki channels (e.g., Twitter) to draw supporters into on‑wiki policy discussions.
• This was assessed by admins as “off‑wiki canvassing” / “brigading,” violating Wikipedia’s canvassing policy.
• Some note additional concerns: calls that sounded like “outing,” and statements about “marching back” into an institution seen as captured by “the left.”

Debate over canvassing and process

• One side argues the rule is clear: decisions must come from internal consensus, not mobilizing external followers, regardless of who does it.
• Others say the rule is easily weaponized to silence unpopular views, with selective enforcement and an ingroup that knows how to use the bureaucracy.
• There was procedural controversy: an admin initially closed the discussion early and imposed a ban, then this was reversed and re‑done after the mandatory period.

Perceptions of political bias and the “intellectual diversity” effort

• Supporters see the project as trying to counter a left‑leaning bias, broaden allowable sources (e.g., right‑leaning outlets), and make governance more accountable.
• Critics see it as a vague, partisan organizing vehicle to normalize low‑quality or extremist sources and to build a conservative bloc inside Wikipedia.
• Some describe it as an “existential threat” that would turn Wikipedia into a platform for competing partisan narratives.

Views on Wikipedia governance and editor culture

• Many describe Wikipedia as run by a small, entrenched group of “nerd‑lords” or a “cabal,” with elaborate rules applied asymmetrically and “unblockable” insiders.
• Others defend the system: admins are overseen by ArbCom, can be recalled, and are required to recuse when involved; Wikipedia is consensus‑based, not a democracy.
• There is discussion of how complex rules plus selective enforcement create power structures and gatekeeping.

Editing experiences and alternatives

• Numerous anecdotes describe hostile, bureaucratic, or biased treatment when trying to fix technical or niche pages, leading contributors to quit.
• Some report smooth, rule‑abiding experiences, suggesting problems concentrate on contentious or “owned” pages.
• Several commenters advocate for forking Wikipedia, creating private wikis, or new decentralized knowledge systems as an alternative path.