On 10 May 2010 22:57, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Jimbo's actions were >> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*. >> > > I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by > "damage" and on what you mean by "no gain." The thesis has been advanced > here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of "the whole > world." I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether "the whole > world" would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story > they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run > -- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I > don't find that proposition particularly credible.
We were going to have nonsense articles in Fox whatever we do - that's the way Fox is. Now we have an article on the BBC News website (a very respected news outlet, unlike Fox) saying there is infighting in Wikipedia which we wouldn't have had if Jimmy hadn't acted. I'm far more concerned about the BBC article than I would be any Fox story. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
