Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Not knowing, but Commons has their own VPs (in many langs), IRC channel and mailing list. I don't see the good reason those particular things on the project are continued to discuss on this list. Cheers, On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > >> We are engaged in a process that will lead to some >> much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some >> of the things that we used to host. >> > > Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing lists? > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Jimmy Wales wrote: > My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of things > - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me on it, > perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a good fight, > even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have. While I support your actions in principle, the issues with your "status" come from the fact that you've been a shoot first kind of guy for a while now, and that mode of action belies your founder mentality, which was (IIRC) to roll up your sleeves and try at least to sorting things out personally and via open discussion. It's clear that there is a undercurrent of support for keeping Commons a bit naked. How nakedness jives with other cultures depends on a few things, and how censoring ourselves might have a counterintuitive/positive impact of opening us up to more conservative/prudish/puritannical cultures of course needs discussing. -Stevertigo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote: > We are engaged in a process that will lead to some > much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some > of the things that we used to host. > Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing lists? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/9/10 3:41 PM, Anthony wrote: > Sure, he tricked the press into thinking the images were permanently > removed, then when the story blew over, you added them back. Everything > went perfectly according to plan. > > Right Jimmy? Of course not. We are engaged in a process that will lead to some much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some of the things that we used to host. -- Jimmy Wales Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 05/09/2010 05:36 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not >> pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and >> people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local >> art works with sex and gender as key themes. As they mention in their >> > Just because someone says that their pornography is art doesn't make it so. > I never said otherwise. However, what I am saying in this case as somebody who lives in the neighborhood and walks past their gallery on the way to the store, their claims are entirely credible. By community standards, what they do is not obscene, and it is not pornographic. As Wikipedia has it, porn is "portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." That means it is by definition impossible to judge whether an image is pornography without understanding the context in which it is made and consumed, because what distinguishes pornography is intent, not content. As comparison, consider that it may be impossible to tell a frame from a horror movie from a crime scene photo or an illustration from a coroner's textbook or a medical reference. It is reasonable to argue that Wikipedia shouldn't host any horrific images, whatever the context. That's an argument about content. It's also reasonable to argue that we should only host horrific images where there's a clear educational purpose. That's an argument about intent. But they are very different arguments. People who are condemning particular images based on content alone with no information as to context of production or use are arguing for a standard based on obscenity, not pornography. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Jimmy Wales wrote: > I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation > and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I > stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry. The apology is a positive step. The claim that you averted a crisis is not. I have no doubt that this was your sincere intention, but it should be abundantly clear to you that your intervention caused far more harm than good. Your repeated reference to "stepping on some toes" only reinforces the damage that you've done to the community by affirming an apparent belief that its longstanding members are relatively insignificant. Now is the time to reach out to the contributors alienated by your approach, not to add insult to injury by downplaying their discontent and departure from Wikimedia projects. I write this not to attack your character, but in the hope that you'll come to your senses and do the right thing. If I believed that you truly were a "tyrant," I wouldn't bother. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
John Vandenberg wrote: > Err, that happened days ago on Jimbo's talk page and, less directly, here: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ&oldid=38893008 I was [humorously] referring to this mailing list's current threads. There are forums in which such a comparison is commonplace, no doubt. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Peter Coombe wrote: > On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote: > > On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and > Jimmy > >>> was > >>> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of > the > >>> poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's > >>> absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest > that he > >>> does. > >>> > >> > >> I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate > >> precisely this result. > > > > And I do approve. > > > > This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had > threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they > couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you approve of the > Commons community reversing your bad deletions. > Sure, he tricked the press into thinking the images were permanently removed, then when the story blew over, you added them back. Everything went perfectly according to plan. Right Jimmy? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Coombe wrote: > On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote: > This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had > threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they > couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you approve of the > Commons community reversing your bad deletions. This capricious > behaviour is driving people from the projects. Actually, in Jimmy Wale's defence: This is the behaviour of someone who is a fast learner. :-) sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Дана Sunday 09 May 2010 10:53:23 William Pietri написа: > On 05/08/2010 10:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied > > sexual activity" in BDSM images like > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images > > like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are not > > pornographic. > > I'm going to stay quite thoroughly out of 99.9% of this discussion, but > that last link is from a well-known local art gallery and performance > space, Femina Potens, [1] that happens to be just a few blocks from my > house. > > At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not > pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and > people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local > art works with sex and gender as key themes. As they mention in their Just because someone says that their pornography is art doesn't make it so. Next thing you'll be telling us is that "art"[http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/Mappleth/MappPg1.html] of Robert Mapplethorpe isn't pornographic. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 04:36:19AM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Fri, May 7, Noein wrote: > > > I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are having these very questions > > now. Is it good for the WMF that we're asking them? > > Eloquence is power. And it is good that you are asking. I always knew there was something about that man... ;-) sincerely, Kim "Oh, you meant the *concept*, not the *person*" Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote: >> >>> >>> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy >>> was >>> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the >>> poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's >>> absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he >>> does. >>> >> >> I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate >> precisely this result. > > And I do approve. > This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you approve of the Commons community reversing your bad deletions. This capricious behaviour is driving people from the projects. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/05/2010 05:46, Jimmy Wales wrote: > On 5/8/10 10:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >> The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they >> were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due >> process is important. > > I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation > and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I > stepped on some toes [...] I'm sorry to step in opposition since we never had the opportunity to met before, Mr. Wales, and I do respect you. It's with great sadness that I must disagree with your systematic and apparently deliberated minimisation or ignorance of the grief you've done. I wouldn't call my freedom of self-determination "my toes". It's the core of my being. I feel I have the right to decide for myself about censorship issues. I feel that my voice should count as one vote, no more no less. I feel that my intelligence deserves access to the knowledge you used to declare a "crisis". I don't feel inferior. I am not. Respect should be reciprocal, and I don't feel this is the case. >[...] for that I am sorry. > I won't do it again. > > The most important questions now have to do with policy on commons. The most important questions for you are not the most important questions for the community, it seems. The most important question for ANY person is to be free to decide (and alive). If you negate that then you can't be sorry. We want a real talk about that, not a dodge. You owe us some listening. By promising that you won't do it again you don't understand (or probably don't want to) that the problem is not adressed. The majority of the community, I think, don't want the WMF projects to be at the mercy of just one person's tastes, no matter what he or she promises. This is too big and important to be that vulnerable. Too many users depend on these universal knowledge projects. Too many years of work from thousands of editors were put. You cannot subject the governance of the universal knowledge to you (or an small elite), because nobody can hold enough open-mindedness to represent all the humanity. You contributed the most important milestone for the liberation of mankind. Don't become a needless tyrant. Sorry for my arrogance. I know most people will judge my ideas on the basis that I am nobody and no recognized trajectory, while your contributions are unquestionable. So be it, I'll take the chance. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJL5pE3AAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6Lv8wH/2z2Z+K1AgEXwlJdCCkuuQ63 OOyeeYR21Hc/2tirjusEmkRpQ8L3NIkrd6e+GSgAFvx3sYwz0ZIwQjXPuU+hnRPt 8H9i5Qh6z3VGLxJ9Uk6FPnk17No79lh2sfcd94/5e3o+HJtKxwLhgh4waR1R3DLT JX1YrRty9WaKzyZn+C770PHHN5UGdYeuifgHSzw5ztvZJfM8+fSAqJGm496PD6+s SnRKiZwQgUh+PU70UVQNpbK/tn4jE2zDxMNAWUtUMr5daz/FZMbGfDQ1y4c6/i6Q Y1AKz71uIMhMEebKUAZ+eRYK4xYyUYhcMhXcHNhTltU6OnuLPME5E5wS3FbfwFs= =hQrz -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 05/08/2010 10:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual > activity" in BDSM images like > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are not > pornographic. > I'm going to stay quite thoroughly out of 99.9% of this discussion, but that last link is from a well-known local art gallery and performance space, Femina Potens, [1] that happens to be just a few blocks from my house. At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local art works with sex and gender as key themes. As they mention in their mission statement [2]: > Since 2003, Femina Potens organized almost 450 performing, visual, > literary, media arts, educational and public arts programs that have > authentically explored the experiences of queer, women, transgender > people and others living outside the female-male gender binary. [...] > We provide the lgbtqik community with a comfortable and inviting > environment to engage and learn about all facets of art, sex and > gender through cutting edge art work, literature, and media that > explores one's gender, sexuality, social issues, wellness, creativity > and kink. You'll note that the explicitly mention education, art, and learning. I have no reason to think they're anything other than sincere; if one wants to make porn in San Francisco, one doesn't have to go to all the trouble of creating a well-regarded non-profit art gallery. I bring this up only because it's a good example of how easy it is to see something that's educational or artistic in nature as porn. I'm sure by some community standards it would be thought obscene, but hereabouts, that's just another day in The Castro. [3] William [1] http://www.feminapotens.org/ [2] http://www.feminapotens.org/index.php?Itemid=62 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Castro ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > >> >> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy >> was >> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the >> poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's >> absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he >> does. >> > > I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate > precisely this result. And I do approve. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/8/10 10:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they > were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due > process is important. I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry. I won't do it again. The most important questions now have to do with policy on commons. -- Jimmy Wales Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/8/10 5:56 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just > sit up like a good dog? We don't just say they're wrong, we join in to > congratulate them. I think it is important to note that to a very large extent they were right - we were hosting a rather large amount of amateur hardcore pornography on commons, not being used in any project. (We still have some, too.) -- Jimmy Wales Please follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/jimmy_wales ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/8/10 5:11 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote: > If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside > influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can > enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord. Oh, but I can't really. In this case, I was in - and remain in - constant communication with the Board and with Sue. That doesn't mean I did everything exactly correctly - I didn't. But I don't regard it in any way as within my personal remit to make major changes to policy. Not only is it not true that I can "get away with anything" - it's also something that I wouldn't want to be true. --Jimbo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Fri, May 7, Noein wrote: > I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are having these very questions > now. Is it good for the WMF that we're asking them? Eloquence is power. And it is good that you are asking. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Noein wrote: > I agree with Mike Godwin that this crisis is an constructive > opportunity, not just a destructive event about fears (of FBI, of Fox > News, of dictatorship), angers and disappointments. > > But an opportunity for what? > - - to constructively discuss the censorship problem. > - - to constructively discuss the vulnerability of the WMF > - - to constructively discuss the Commons policy > > Let's start to pinpoint and synthesize the few big problems and link to > a wikipage to BUILD discussion and answer. You put this very well. Each of these should be discussed in turn on Meta. I've made a start at the first one: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Censorship > 200 mails a day is not the way, in my opinion, > besides the fact that this current discussion > is not (and should not be) restricted to this mailing list. True on both counts. Any wiki discussion should also draw in participants from other large projects (en:wp, de:wp, ja:wp, &c). @DGG: I'll respond to your comments in another thread. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:06 AM, David Levy wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: > >> All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are >> deeply misleading. > > At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet. Err, that happened days ago on Jimbo's talk page and, less directly, here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ&oldid=38893008 -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
The question is not about your honesty, Mike, but the WMF board. In authorizing their statement, did they expect that Jimmy would take the sort of action he did? In practice they are the only ones who have any control over what actions he takes; I would expect that after an hysterical over-reaction like his giving their statement as justification, they would promptly act to explain that this is not what they meant by their statement. Rather, the initial reaction of at least some of the board were to support his actions. It reminds me very much of the enWP's actions after the single handed mass deletion of BLPs. They too endorsed it. They cannot most of them have really thought that thoughtless action of that sort was the way to solve the problem, but they endorsed it anyway. In the eyes of many of us, by doing this they lost a good deal of their respect and legitimacy. The board is doing likewise, but it still has time to correct itself. I do not know who besides themselves could abolish a system-wide permission, and i call on them to end the founder permission because of its uniquely great potential for inappropriate use-- which would allow the various projects to do as they choose about the other permissions on their own projects. I continue to respect Jimmy's views more than that of any other single person here (except perhaps your own, Mike, based on your very judicious comments here), but that is not the same as giving any one person unchecked power over the project. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > Florence writes: > > Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many >> speakers on this list, > > > Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note, > and I'll rephrase accordingly. > > >> I would argue that one of the implications of the >> abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having "lost touch with >> base". I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help >> restore trust. >> > > Just to be clear about this: Jimmy didn't ask me to speak for him, and I > haven't represented here that I'm speaking for him. I'm only offering my > personal (convoluted!) point of view, trying to be helpful. > > > --Mike > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Florence writes: Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many > speakers on this list, Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note, and I'll rephrase accordingly. > I would argue that one of the implications of the > abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having "lost touch with > base". I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help > restore trust. > Just to be clear about this: Jimmy didn't ask me to speak for him, and I haven't represented here that I'm speaking for him. I'm only offering my personal (convoluted!) point of view, trying to be helpful. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Larry Pieniazek wrote: > > The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and > again we've seen that without precipitious action, the consensus process > stalls out. I've seen Jimbo make this argument as well. Say, in essence, "The community couldn't reach a consensus, so I imposed mine own will in an effect to spur the community to consensus. " Well, it worked-- as a result of his acctions, there is an incredibly strong consensus that Jimbo can no longer be trusted with the tools. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Between Wikiversity blocking and Commons ones, there is another example of Jimmy's rushes and communal nonsupport, I think. That is, on a "global ban" of a certain editor. While I personally don't care if that guy is banned or not, I care the Jimmy's claim he has a right to declare global ban in his individual right. Respectfully I disagree. And I saw other community members do the same: one the account of that editor in question was locked but soon unlocked. I suppose things would have gone in a different course if the first step had been a proposal, not declare. One other thing I'm concerned is that Jimmy hasn't known global user right management system - global lock in this case. It may demonstrate he is alienated from the day-by-day project housekeeping and don't know how the things are managed in this level. In general I suppose it wouldn't be a bright idea to keep someone a mop without knowledge how wikis work. In this dispute, we already have seen a general agreement (hardcore porns w/o any illustration purpose are to delete) and some disagreements in details (how such deletions are performed, if certain images should be kept or go away etc.). Let me summarize, we are happy to accord in general policy but still need to discuss in details. I sincerely wish if Jimmy had kept the line of policy discussion and taken initiative, not tipped into each controversy of corner picking. Once Jimmy said he on Wikipedia was similar to English Queen to some extent: regnat et non gubernat. I find it words of wisdom. Specially right now Jimmy is much busier and have less time to give a look to each community disputes. In other words, declaring ban an individual or deleting an individual image is not ruling, but governing. Jimmy, I wholeheartedly recommend you to be back to your past wisdom and discretion. Then you will find you are in the community, of those who have ears to you, if you speak calmly and thoughtfully. On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Florence Devouard wrote: > On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote: >> On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard wrote: >> >>> On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >>> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on what he was thinking, >>> >>> Then let him speak by himself >> >> I think most of us would be biased to hear him speak (well, >> metaphorically). I too am guilty of such, by ignoring advice (even if >> good and useful) simply because of who the speaker is. >> >> Now, I would expect any public figure like Jimmy Wales to get a bit of >> shit thrown at him occasionally, even from his own ranks. But I have >> to say, the tone has been far away from professional here and there. >> So letting Godwin speaking on his behalf makes sense. > > Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many > speakers on this list, I would argue that one of the implications of the > abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having "lost touch with > base". I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help > restore trust. > > >> It's a fresh new approach to the discussion, because we are not >> immediately biased by it being Wales speaking. >> >> And not to mention that Godwin has a point; this was an opportunity in >> disguise. And unfortunately, in retrospect, this wasn't really picked >> up by the community, instead it turned into another 'fight the power' >> rebellion. >> >> I do not condone Wales' methods of handling the whole situation (hell, >> I am not sure how good he is at PR!), but that is a minor issue, but >> since of course it becomes the classic 'tyrant' in action, people >> focuses on the small 'controversial' things. Opportunists, I suppose. > > Opportunists hmmm, I am not convinced. > But maybe is it fair to remind that the original vote to support removal > of founder flag was NOT started because of the porn image story, but was > started because of ANOTHER ISSUE (Wikiversity) that took place less than > two months ago. > In the French speaking world, editors have another grunge against WMF > because of the deletion of all this content on the French Wikisource a > few months ago, with the argument that it was *maybe* illegal under > French Law. > So, it may be that the issues individually taken are small. All together... > > > >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@li
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Anthere said: > However, the lost perception that the community is in charge of its own future > (eg, the way it operates, the power structure), is not a detail. > It will impact our entire future. The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and again we've seen that without precipitious action, the consensus process stalls out. The community is leaderless. That's supposed to be a feature of the wiki model but sometimes it's not. Resolving BLP on en:wp had stalled out until a handful of admins (including, I note, MZMcBride, among others) took some action. That got discussion going and maybe some progress will be made. Or maybe things will stall out again. Commons has too much problematic content. The [[Commons:Sexual Content]] discussion and other policy discussions was completely stalled, with some very vocal folks blocking progress. I'm not going to say that Jimbo handled the best way possible but maybe now some progress in deciding what policy will be will be made. Or maybe things will stall out again. One can hope, though. Larry Pieniazek Hobby mail: Lar at Miltontrainworks dot com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote: > On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard wrote: > >> On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: >> >>> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a >>> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on >>> what he was thinking, >> >> Then let him speak by himself > > I think most of us would be biased to hear him speak (well, > metaphorically). I too am guilty of such, by ignoring advice (even if > good and useful) simply because of who the speaker is. > > Now, I would expect any public figure like Jimmy Wales to get a bit of > shit thrown at him occasionally, even from his own ranks. But I have > to say, the tone has been far away from professional here and there. > So letting Godwin speaking on his behalf makes sense. Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many speakers on this list, I would argue that one of the implications of the abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having "lost touch with base". I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help restore trust. > It's a fresh new approach to the discussion, because we are not > immediately biased by it being Wales speaking. > > And not to mention that Godwin has a point; this was an opportunity in > disguise. And unfortunately, in retrospect, this wasn't really picked > up by the community, instead it turned into another 'fight the power' > rebellion. > > I do not condone Wales' methods of handling the whole situation (hell, > I am not sure how good he is at PR!), but that is a minor issue, but > since of course it becomes the classic 'tyrant' in action, people > focuses on the small 'controversial' things. Opportunists, I suppose. Opportunists hmmm, I am not convinced. But maybe is it fair to remind that the original vote to support removal of founder flag was NOT started because of the porn image story, but was started because of ANOTHER ISSUE (Wikiversity) that took place less than two months ago. In the French speaking world, editors have another grunge against WMF because of the deletion of all this content on the French Wikisource a few months ago, with the argument that it was *maybe* illegal under French Law. So, it may be that the issues individually taken are small. All together... > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard wrote: > On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a >> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on >> what he was thinking, > > Then let him speak by himself I think most of us would be biased to hear him speak (well, metaphorically). I too am guilty of such, by ignoring advice (even if good and useful) simply because of who the speaker is. Now, I would expect any public figure like Jimmy Wales to get a bit of shit thrown at him occasionally, even from his own ranks. But I have to say, the tone has been far away from professional here and there. So letting Godwin speaking on his behalf makes sense. It's a fresh new approach to the discussion, because we are not immediately biased by it being Wales speaking. And not to mention that Godwin has a point; this was an opportunity in disguise. And unfortunately, in retrospect, this wasn't really picked up by the community, instead it turned into another 'fight the power' rebellion. I do not condone Wales' methods of handling the whole situation (hell, I am not sure how good he is at PR!), but that is a minor issue, but since of course it becomes the classic 'tyrant' in action, people focuses on the small 'controversial' things. Opportunists, I suppose. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > >> >> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If >> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city >> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating. >> > > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"! > > >> Not implicitly, no. But you were defending actions that in my eyes did >> just that, namely by deleting material apparently using the criterium >> "what might Fox object to?" rather than using the criterium "what does >> not in any way add to our mission of spreading knowledge?" >> > > I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a > criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on > what he was thinking, Then let him speak by himself but I'll note again that, to the extent you focus on > retrospectively criticizing Jimmy and not on what can be done positively to > improve Commons policy or its implementation, you are missing an > opportunity. Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. > > > --Mike Well, all we are thinking about is precisely the future and the project. The project was built upon the perception that this project was build by and for the regular people. That no one was the boss and deciding for the others. That everyone had a say. That everyone was empowered. The so-called porn images are a detail within the project. However, the lost perception that the community is in charge of its own future (eg, the way it operates, the power structure), is not a detail. It will impact our entire future. Ant ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
If you intend to build a house, you build some foundations first, or at the very least you create a plan to follow. Quick solutions are not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a difference between a solution and actions that only cause damage. Personally i doubt that this would have generated the same amount of controversy and debate if this was laid out or at least communicated and planned before actions were taken. Keep in mind that a 30% revert rate is massive, and an indication that large amounts of collateral damage were done. To state something that has been said to many times already: Removing works of art (Paintings) on the basis that they appeared to be explicit is simply not well though off, especially if that same painting was the subject (or used) in multiple article's on carious incarnations of Wikipedia. I would also point out that a policy was being discussed and finalized. Even without suck a policy a simple statement explaining what was going on would have helped tremendously. Instead most users were left in the dark with no indication about the magnitude or reason for the removals. If anything we are expected to operate on a consensus basis, which tends to be slower but generally produces good results. I don't doubt Jimbo had good intentions, but i also know that no other admin could have gotten away with a case like this. As a sidenote i would point out that while we are indeed accessible to children, we always state that we are not censored and therefor not appropriate for minors. Italy's law does not apply to Wikipedia servers - after all we don't have to submit to China's Golden Shield Project either. And while it is a WAX argument - if those children search for pornographic content they can easily find a lot more explicit content then Wikipedia offers. At least we handle it with a bit more care then most sites do. ~Excirial On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:24 PM, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > On 08.05.2010 23:02, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > >> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. > >> > > We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice > > and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will > > not repeat. > > > > Probably this is happened twice because twice the community has been too > weak to find a "quick" solution. > > The legal involvement of publication of explicit sexual images > accessible to children is something established a lot of year ago in > different legal systems, this is nothing that is happened only one or > two months ago. > > The community has had time (and a lot of time). > > The request of a wake up of Jimbo is not an excuse. > > Ilario > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Adam, could you please continue existing discussions instead of creating new ones again and again? kind regards teun spaans On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > (Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous > draft) > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > > Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that > > a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding > > towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal > > issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something. > > > > That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the > > evolving community decision, and has been completely derailed as it > > turns out completely different motives (Public relations) were, in > > fact, the real ones. > > > > If you want policy discussions, first regain the trust of the > > community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to > > develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic > > and filmed pornography. > > > > After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, > > Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give > > us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on > > building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - > > because community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping > > artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy > > discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off > > as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion. > > > > > > We now are told this is a free speech issue. > > > > So what policy > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 08.05.2010 23:02, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. >> > We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice > and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will > not repeat. > Probably this is happened twice because twice the community has been too weak to find a "quick" solution. The legal involvement of publication of explicit sexual images accessible to children is something established a lot of year ago in different legal systems, this is nothing that is happened only one or two months ago. The community has had time (and a lot of time). The request of a wake up of Jimbo is not an excuse. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: >> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. > > We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice > and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will > not repeat. > We do think project: if we already had careless interventions with > desysopping, users retiring and wheelwarring, how can we except we > will not have more users leaving and more users getting upset by being > ignored? > > The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they > were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due > process is important. Well— some of the deletions were clearly a problem. Currently 30% of Jimmy's deletions have been undone. The deletions of in use images isn't something we would have decided to do outright. Instead we probably would have worked to find replacements if the images were decided to be problematic. The deletion of in-use work have eroded the trust our customer projects have in commons (the Germans are referring to this incident as "Vulva reloaded")... resulting in plans to mass-reupload the deleted works locally which have mostly been forestalled based on the diligent work commons admins are performing in getting images which were in use restored. To the best of my ability to discern, none of our customer projects (many of which allow local image uploads) have guidelines which would have resolved the concerns with sexually explicit images had they been applied to commons. This is one of the major complicating factors: While commons is also in independent educational resource, we are _also_ a service project for the other projects. When commons deletes in image a local project would have allowed this can produce significant bad blood. We have mostly established a good working relationship around copyright and other areas where commons tends to be restrictive. But in the case of copyright we could lean on an understanding of copyright concerns local to every project. "Commons must be restrictive because it is used by everyone, we can't let ourselves be used as a back door to violate the policies of XYZ Wiki". But, example restrictions on sexual content basically do not exist. So instead this activity comes off as a back door effort by commons to override the community decision making on every Wikimedia project. (I should be noted that every complaint I'm raising in this message could have been avoided by simply skipping the images which were in active use) If one of the major wikipedia had sexual content restrictions we'd have an easier time developing a process for commons. In the absence of such a restriction on a Wikipedia it's harder to even make the case that such a rule is even required for commons. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
(Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous draft) On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that > a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding > towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal > issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something. > > That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the > evolving community decision, and has been completely derailed as it > turns out completely different motives (Public relations) were, in > fact, the real ones. > > If you want policy discussions, first regain the trust of the > community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to > develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic > and filmed pornography. > > After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, > Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give > us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on > building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - > because community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping > artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy > discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off > as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion. > > > We now are told this is a free speech issue. > > So what policy > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something. That was derailed by his actions, which also completely ignored the evolving community decision, and has been completely derailed as it turns out completely different motives (Public relations) were, in fact, the real ones. If you want policy discussions, first regain the trust of the community Jimbo lied to in what turned out to be a sham effort to develop a consensus policy about the reporting issues for photographic and filmed pornography. After actively deceiving us as to the reasons for a policy discussion, Jimbo needs dealt with, and someone we can trust to play fair and give us the actual reasons - and who won't pretend to be cooperating on building policy, then ignore every single bit of community consensus - because community consensus came down hard on the side of keeping artworks - before we can go back to trying to restart a policy discussion which began with active deceit of the community, first off as to the reasons, and secondly, that it was a discussion. We now are told this is a free speech issue. So what policy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 08.05.2010 17:48, Mike Godwin wrote: > I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be > improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the > result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. > > I agree most of all with this point. I don't understand this dissatisfaction generated by Jimbo's decision. Commons is so careful with the copyright's violation and some decisions of Commons community has been perceived to be excessively "severe" to other communities, but in other ways Commons seems to be so unconnected with other kind of "legal" problems that I personally have thought to be in mistaken. In Italy, for example, the explicit publication of pornographic content in a public web sites is not allowed and any deficiency is treated *with "criminal" law*. The deleted images and the free access for children has been a strange situation until now with legal involvement in a lot of countries. The images have had neither a disclaimer or a warning concerning the children access and the feeling given to the users has been that of the indifference to the problem. I have never understood why the Commons community has not treated this matter so careful than the copyright's violation and the reaction of the community to Jimbo can only confirm me the feeling of "indifference". Now I see that Jimbo has managed the problem with urgency and asked to the community to fix the problem at last. I cannot see any other problem. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will not repeat. We do think project: if we already had careless interventions with desysopping, users retiring and wheelwarring, how can we except we will not have more users leaving and more users getting upset by being ignored? The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due process is important. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not > Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, "Sit down and work > out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and then revisit > social constructs". Work first, then have a cup of coffee and talk. > You're not wrong. You've restated my views better than I stated them. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create disorder nor to > preserve disorder. It's not the nature of disorder to need creating or > preserving. > > Creating and preserving order is a much harder challenge. Obviously, > creativity needs freedom and diversity, but it also needs rules. Striking > the right balance between freedom and rules is especially hard, but if the > recent debate leads people to reflecting on what a better balance is, > that's > a good result, even if people remain (understandably) unhappy with certain > particular actions that gave rise to the debate. > > I know a lot of people suppose that the attack from Fox is the trigger for > discussion of review of Commons policy, but in fact Commons policy has been > subject to ongoing review and discussion for some time now, as FloNight has > mentioned. Fox's maliciousness, and Jimmy's unilateral response to it, may > have added some urgency to the discussion, but I think the discussion needs > to happen. > > > --Mike > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > I don't follow Commons, and I've only an inkling of this debate, but this comment is strikingly familiar. It wasn't Jimmy but a couple rogue admins that launched a fury and later fruitful discussion on Biographies of Living Persons on the English Wikipedia back in January. Finger wagging at Jimbo isn't the point, because whomever did such an action would be excoriated. This doesn't mean the theoretical conversation shouldn't be had, or isn't valid, but more to Mike's point of a catalyst for resolution of a long-term, ongoing discussion. While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, "Sit down and work out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and then revisit social constructs". Work first, then have a cup of coffee and talk. Stepping on project toes and upsetting communities is bad, but this was bound to happen on Commons at some point and Jimbo was the one that did it. Argue about respecting community rights later, it's an apt argument. So is the discussion of Jimbo. But focus on Commons now while it's on the front burner before it is scorched. Just my two cents. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley: > > "The policeman isn't there to create disorder; > the policeman is there to preserve disorder." > > > Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D > I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create disorder nor to preserve disorder. It's not the nature of disorder to need creating or preserving. Creating and preserving order is a much harder challenge. Obviously, creativity needs freedom and diversity, but it also needs rules. Striking the right balance between freedom and rules is especially hard, but if the recent debate leads people to reflecting on what a better balance is, that's a good result, even if people remain (understandably) unhappy with certain particular actions that gave rise to the debate. I know a lot of people suppose that the attack from Fox is the trigger for discussion of review of Commons policy, but in fact Commons policy has been subject to ongoing review and discussion for some time now, as FloNight has mentioned. Fox's maliciousness, and Jimmy's unilateral response to it, may have added some urgency to the discussion, but I think the discussion needs to happen. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: >> >> You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words "not individually" were >> chosen for a reason. >> >> Let me put it this way -- sometimes a police officer has to use physical >> force to stop further violence from having. If you inferred from this >> statement that that I favor police intervention as a first resort, or that I >> favor physical force, you would properly be criticized as misrepresenting my >> views. >> >> >> Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley: "The policeman isn't there to create disorder; the policeman is there to preserve disorder." Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 "Imagine a world where every single media and government on the planet is given free censorship on the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're king of." I agree with Mike Godwin that this crisis is an constructive opportunity, not just a destructive event about fears (of FBI, of Fox News, of dictatorship), angers and disappointments. But an opportunity for what? - - to constructively discuss the censorship problem. - - to constructively discuss the vulnerability of the WMF - - to constructively discuss the Commons policy Let's start to pinpoint and synthesize the few big problems and link to a wikipage to BUILD discussion and answer. 200 mails a day is not the way, in my opinion, besides the fact that this current discussion is not (and should not be) restricted to this mailing list. Do we already have appropriate wikipage (or another collaborative structure) to discuss these points? On 08/05/2010 12:48, Mike Godwin wrote: > I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but > instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked > extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of > themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that > Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News > (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is the > idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on > Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular > aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of > whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better > implemented. > > First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a > responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories > wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's > uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when > their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their > aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. > This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) > were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that > Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. > But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to > infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and > to good projects. > > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. Jimmy's decision to > intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if > you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may > still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created > breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. > > The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of > Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a > problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and > technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if > you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons > policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal > opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. > > I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be > improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the > result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. > > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I > would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I > recognize that I'd
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> Marc Riddell writes: > > >> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of >> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important >> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a >> more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. >> > > Marc, I've been listening all along. Neither expression of disagreement nor > an effort to focus on constructive solutions entails the conclusion that > someone isn't listening. > > Now, did you hear and learn from what I just said? > > Best regards, > > > --Mike Mike, my ability to hear is good and I learn from everything I hear, my ability to listen is excellent, and my ability to analyze is awesome :-). This Community is trying to tell you something and, via this List, the entire Foundation staff. Their anger right now is directed at a person whose recent actions have shown a total disregard of their existence. And they want some concrete assurance that it will not happen again. That is what they want to talk about. Yet you insist on trying to steer the conversation toward dealing rationally with policy. That rationality cannot be accomplished with the level of emotion that exists within the group you are trying to steer. In psychological terms, denial of an issue is really saying, "Anything but that". To admit that the "that" is the problem might mean having to confront, and possibly get rid of, the "that". There is a hint of that in your trying to steer this conversation. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
I'm generally in favor of Jimmy's leadership, or the idea of project leadership in general. See my March 27 post opposing the poll to remove his Founder flag, on meta. I'm also strongly in favor of reform in the area of sexually explicit imagery on Commons and other projects, see the many threads I've started or participated in over the past three years on this subject. A week ago, I would have said I'd very much like to see Jimmy's leadership in this particular area. On the other hand, leadership is more than taking unilateral action. It's more than power, and more than authority. If Jimmy had explained himself fully, perhaps with a statement very similar to what Mike has written in this thread, the reaction would have been much more muted. He may have had active assistance from the Commons community instead of active opposition and an angry backlash. The "GodKing" status is the result of political capital; the goal should be to provide leadership while expending as little of that as necessary, because once it's gone it's gone for good - c.f. Jimmy's relinquishing of certain rights on the English Wikipedia. Lastly, I think his recent activity has been clumsy and amateurish, particularly prompted as it was by Fox News. For those not familiar with Fox News, its impact and its reputation... The rest of the mainstream media views its claims with suspicion and some degree of disdain, and with good reason. By reacting so aggressively to Fox's counter-factual claims, we make it harder for our allies and responsible journalists to argue and prove that we are not guilty of hosting "child pornography" and tolerating pedophilia. That's too bad - as they say, the coverup is usually worse than the crime. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > > However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia > Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get > off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear to > be completely at odds with your past positions in this area. > When you are referring to my "past positions in this area," could you say which works of mine you have read, and which passages you believe stand in opposition to Jimmy's deleting content he believes are triggering attacks on the projects? I hope you'll understand my skepticism as to whether you have read CYBER RIGHTS. I hardly know anyone who's read it. ;) --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0400, David Levy wrote: > Mike Godwin wrote: > > > All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are > > deeply misleading. > > At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet. > Idiot! That's his http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BerserkButton ! %-/ You better apologise. Maybe he'll let you live. ;-) sincerely, Kim Bruning Ps. You lose. -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Mike Godwin wrote: > Similarly, I don't favor "attacks on free speech" -- but like Nat Hentoff and > other free-speech theorists, I recognize that free speech depends on active > intervention and rule-making sometimes. I know you are trying to be > provocative, but what you write here suggests that you don't actually > understand much of the nuance of free-speech principles. And once again, the goalposts are shifting. In Jimmy's original comments on Commons, he paints this as a legal issue.[1] In subsequent posts to this mailing list, he paints this as a public relations issue.[2] Now you're trying to suggest that it's a free speech issue and that he was acting in the interest of promoting free speech (in a rather roundabout way, I'll add). That isn't to say that it's impossible that Jimmy _might_ have been doing all three at once, but the odds favor the conclusion that he's simply acting to serve his own interests and using whatever storyline justifies his action the most when people call him out on his poor behavior. I'm not trying to be provocative, I'm trying to figure out where these views of yours are coming from, especially if they're not coming from your role as a Wikimedia Foundation employee. If you were speaking as an employee, standing behind Jimmy makes perfect sense: he's the one who, in many ways, pays the bills. It's his face on the donation banners that bring in the funds needed to keep your job and the Wikimedia Foundation sustainable. However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear to be completely at odds with your past positions in this area. Perhaps you can explain how Jimmy's "active intervention and rule-making" promote free speech or, at a minimum, do it no harm. I'm still not seeing it. MZMcBride [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=38835388&oldid=38835233#Record _keeping [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057896.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Mike Godwin wrote: > All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are > deeply misleading. At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet. David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Marc Riddell writes: > Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of > this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important > points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a > more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. > Marc, I've been listening all along. Neither expression of disagreement nor an effort to focus on constructive solutions entails the conclusion that someone isn't listening. Now, did you hear and learn from what I just said? Best regards, --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"! > > Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is > because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just > want revenge for something. FOX don't want anything we have and they > don't really dislike us (sure, they would rather people went to them > for knowledge than us, but that isn't really what this is about). They > are attacking us simply because it makes exciting news and makes them > more money. That is a completely different motive to an attack on a > village so a defence based on a metaphor of an attack on a village is > bound to fail. > All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are deeply misleading. But I'll do my best to avoid bad metaphors in the future if Andre will join me in doing so. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: > > Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned > aspects of it in oft-quoted "essay"s (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]]. > If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at > Wikimania? This might reduce wikidrama all around. ; > I think this is a great idea. I fully support it. > > Oh well. If all you've got is lemons, it's time to make lemonade > ;-) > This is a good attitude to have, and I support it too. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 18:31, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > >> >> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If >> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city >> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating. >> > > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"! Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just want revenge for something. FOX don't want anything we have and they don't really dislike us (sure, they would rather people went to them for knowledge than us, but that isn't really what this is about). They are attacking us simply because it makes exciting news and makes them more money. That is a completely different motive to an attack on a village so a defence based on a metaphor of an attack on a village is bound to fail. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:48:29AM -0700, Mike Godwin wrote: > Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were > attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all > of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to > see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing > space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. I see that part, and I agree. All of the thought processes were dead on, up to the point where Jimmy actually decided on what action he would take. Hmm, maybe it's a question of him not having the right tools to solve problems rapidly with minimal controversy. Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned aspects of it in oft-quoted "essay"s (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]]. If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at Wikimania? This might reduce wikidrama all around. ;-) At the moment, Sj is working with the commons community to tidy up the mess: worst case, it may require undeleting *everything* and starting over. Obviously, it would have been better and quicker to have done it right the first time round, and it wouldn't have even taken much more time at all. Oh well. If all you've got is lemons, it's time to make lemonade ;-) sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > > Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If > you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city > wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating. > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"! > Not implicitly, no. But you were defending actions that in my eyes did > just that, namely by deleting material apparently using the criterium > "what might Fox object to?" rather than using the criterium "what does > not in any way add to our mission of spreading knowledge?" > I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on what he was thinking, but I'll note again that, to the extent you focus on retrospectively criticizing Jimmy and not on what can be done positively to improve Commons policy or its implementation, you are missing an opportunity. Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote: >> >> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just >> sit up like a good dog? > > No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad metaphor. When your village is > attacked and subject to future attacks, you build defenses. (Better > metaphor.) All defenses compromise your ability to do something besides > defend yourself -- that's the economics of biology. But we can't change the > way the world works by denying it. Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating. >> but to me, our own ideas and values ... should not be sacrificed to our >> popularity with a part of our audience. > > I agree and posted nothing to the contrary. Not implicitly, no. But you were defending actions that in my eyes did just that, namely by deleting material apparently using the criterium "what might Fox object to?" rather than using the criterium "what does not in any way add to our mission of spreading knowledge?" -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
I am amazed by the Keep votes the various deletion requests for images in the BDSM gallery -- files that are not actually used by any project -- are getting. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/08#May_8 Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual activity" in BDSM images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are not pornographic. Andreas --- On Sat, 8/5/10, Sydney Poore wrote: > From: Sydney Poore > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates > To: mnemo...@gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > > Date: Saturday, 8 May, 2010, 17:27 > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike > Godwin > wrote: > > > I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf > of the Foundation but > > instead as a longtime participant in online > communities who has worked > > extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my > perspective on a couple of > > themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first > is the claim that > > Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a > threat by Fox News > > (and that this threat was somehow small or > insignificant). The second is > > the > > idea that the proper focus of the current discussion > ought to be focused on > > Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or > against particular > > aspects of the actions he took) to the effective > exclusion of discussion of > > whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, > refined, or better > > implemented. > > > > First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox > News is not a > > responsible news organization. This means that they > get too many stories > > wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically > echo Larry Sanger's > > uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it > also means that when > > their mistakes are brought to their attention, they > may redouble their > > aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating > their original story. > > This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its > reporter and her editors) > > were trying to do. If the media culture in the United > States were such that > > Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could > probably just ignore it. > > But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox > News does manage to > > infect other media coverage in ways that are > destructive to good people and > > to good projects. > > > > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been > better for Fox to > > have gone with the original story they were trying to > create rather than > > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. > Jimmy's decision to > > intervene changed the narrative they were attempting > to create. So even if > > you disagree with some or all of the particulars of > Jimmy's actions, you > > may > > still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a > whole, created > > breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons > that even many of > > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. > > > > The question then becomes whether we're doing to > discuss the issues of > > Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions > themselves signify a > > problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we > can discuss both, and > > technically you'd be right, but the reality of human > discourse is that if > > you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be > discussing Commons > > policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons > policy. My personal > > opinion is that this would be the waste of an > opportunity. > > > > I think it's also worth remembering that when an > individual like Jimmy is > > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in > extraordinary > > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any > use of those powers > > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, > nobody would need > > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems > quickly and > > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your > disagreement with the > > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's > powers should be removed, > > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this > abrupt intervention as an > > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its > implementation can be > > improved in a way that brings it more
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > > So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just > sit up like a good dog? No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad metaphor. When your village is attacked and subject to future attacks, you build defenses. (Better metaphor.) All defenses compromise your ability to do something besides defend yourself -- that's the economics of biology. But we can't change the way the world works by denying it. > We dn't just say they're wrong, we join in to > congratulate them. > I don't see anyone congratulating Fox except Fox and the usual folks aimed at destroying us anway. > I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter. > > Not towards Fox, but how about other news avenues? I actually addressed this in my original posting. > but to me, our own ideas and values ... should not be sacrificed to our > popularity with a part of our audience. I agree and posted nothing to the contrary. > Even less should they be > sacrificed in a way that is likely to be uneffective (you yourself > said that Fox will present whatever we do as a proof of them being > right and us being wrong). > See, you even recognize that I already said we won't win over Fox. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Sydney Poore wrote: > The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed > attention to a long standing problem. And to Hell with the "toes" (i.e. valued contributors who retired in disgust) "stepped on" along the way? David Levy ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote: > Jimbo never revealed the reasons he was doing this - the FOX News > attacks - until after he did them, and it was a fait accompli. > > He actively worked to mislead the community about the reasons and > goals of his actions. > > After the community had made it very clear that they felt artworks > should be protected, in their editing of [[Commons:Sexual content]], > he ignored it and deleted artworks anyway, and wheel warred to keep > them deleted. > > If you want people to focus on policy, you open a thread saying "In > the opinion of the board, we need to deal with this issue. Here's a > draft proposal, we need you to quickly deal with this, as the media > may be looking into things. > > You don't A. not mention the reason you're doing it and, B. ignore > anything and everything you get as feedback from the community. > [...] > Wikipedia has survived bad publicity in the past. It's never hurt us > one bit. Jimbo's actions have hurt us. This should be all about Jimbo. Ageed. This issue /is/ all about Jimbo's founder powers. Everyone understands that Commons isn't a free web host and the sheer logistics force us to say "Thanks, but, we have enough porn right now". If the community does get to make its own policies again using consensus, I'm sure it will succeed. The only issue here is the fact that Jimbo, like any other admin, needs to surrender his tools for misusing them yesterday. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet. But when I did see > your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to > congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in > response. I've been dealing with media strategy, both as a reporter and as > someone who has to respond to media, for nearly three decades now. The issue > isn't whether you can persuade Fox of anything -- Fox is not the kind of > organization you can have a discussion with. So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just sit up like a good dog? We don't just say they're wrong, we join in to congratulate them. >> Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox >> news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the >> images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned >> discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been >> an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. > > I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter. Not towards Fox, but how about other news avenues? And in the end, I think our policy here should be based on our own principles, not on what others may or may not say about us. Maybe for US members this is different, but to me, our own ideas and values (as exemplarized in the board statement on this subject - the question should be whether the image has educational value) should not be sacrificed to our popularity with a part of our audience. Even less should they be sacrificed in a way that is likely to be uneffective (you yourself said that Fox will present whatever we do as a proof of them being right and us being wrong). -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Jimbo never revealed the reasons he was doing this - the FOX News attacks - until after he did them, and it was a fait accompli. He actively worked to mislead the community about the reasons and goals of his actions. After the community had made it very clear that they felt artworks should be protected, in their editing of [[Commons:Sexual content]], he ignored it and deleted artworks anyway, and wheel warred to keep them deleted. If you want people to focus on policy, you open a thread saying "In the opinion of the board, we need to deal with this issue. Here's a draft proposal, we need you to quickly deal with this, as the media may be looking into things. You don't A. not mention the reason you're doing it and, B. ignore anything and everything you get as feedback from the community. Jimbo, by going off half-cocked, wheel-warring, and misleading the community, has struck at the core of Wikipedia's principles. When Iranian TV threatens bad publicity, will we delete all depictions of Muhammed? If the Virgin Killer controversy happens again, is the board's new policy to immediately capitulate? Wikipedia has survived bad publicity in the past. It's never hurt us one bit. Jimbo's actions have hurt us. This should be all about Jimbo. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> on 5/8/10 12:21 PM, Mike Godwin at mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: > > I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the > consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do > so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an > opportunity to do something constructive. > > Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen and Learn. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 17:40, Mike Godwin wrote: > > > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> >> On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:Most of the >> debate has been >> about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. >> > > So fix it. I'm flattered that you think I have that level of influence, but I don't. We can't have a good discussion about policy until people aren't being distracted by Jimmy, and I can't do anything about that. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Sydney Poore wrote: > I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment. > > The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community > discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not > censored" should not be used to halt discussions about the way to manage > content. > > The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed > attention to a long standing problem. Now is the time for the Community to > focus on cleaning up Commons and writing a sensible policy about managing > sexual content. I think the question weighing heavily on everyone's mind is why Wikimedia didn't simply ask for this first before taking such direct and hasty intervention? I've not personally seen _too much_ of the "not censored" being used to halt discussion, commons does mostly have a working understanding that there are compromises— though the compromises have largely fallen too far to one side in my opinion. Simply re-emphasizing "educational resource" and "not a porn host" would probably have been enough to spur action at commons, even though that wouldn't be enough to move some of the less well functioning communities, and it would avoid the current drama, and the disruption and damage to the projects as in-use images were deleted out from under them. On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:Most of the >> debate has been >> about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. > So fix it. Moreover, Jimmy specifically directed us not to discuss these deletions until June 1st. This is hardly a good way to assist in writing a sensible policy. On the subject of a sensible policy, Sydney, perhaps you could direct us to the EnWP policy that makes short work of this issue? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:Most of the > debate has been > about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. > > So fix it. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > > Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy > was > the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the > poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's > absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he > does. > I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate precisely this result. > > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate > about > > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. > > Huh. I never thought I'd see the day that Mike Godwin would be supporting > an > attack on free speech and free ideas through censorship. You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words "not individually" were chosen for a reason. Let me put it this way -- sometimes a police officer has to use physical force to stop further violence from having. If you inferred from this statement that that I favor police intervention as a first resort, or that I favor physical force, you would properly be criticized as misrepresenting my views. Similarly, I don't favor "attacks on free speech" -- but like Nat Hentoff and other free-speech theorists, I recognize that free speech depends on active intervention and rule-making sometimes. I know you are trying to be provocative, but what you write here suggests that you don't actually understand much of the nuance of free-speech principles. > I don't say > "censorship," lightly: Jimmy deliberately deleted historical pieces of art > and illustrations in his rampage. And you think this is a good thing? > No. Mike, it looks like you've compromised your ideals in favor of toeing the > party line, and for that, I'm pretty disappointed. > It is inconceivable to me that you have ever not been disappointed in me. I'm familiar with your other writings, after all. It is your nature to be disappointed. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 17:27, Sydney Poore wrote: > > I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment. > > The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community > discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not > censored" should not be used to halt discussions about the way to manage > content. It hasn't been. With previous attempts "you are being a [[WP:DICK]] go away" (okey generally with less explicit phrasing) has been used to halt the discussion. Not censored or otherwise /is/ the discussion. > The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed > attention to a long standing problem. Useful attention is a subset of attention. We've not got much of that subset right now. >Now is the time for the Community to > focus on cleaning up Commons and writing a sensible policy about managing > sexual content. The community doesn't answer to you. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote: > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. Perhaps, but that is a very small extent. Most of the debate has been about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images. The same thing happens whenever Jimmy intervenes like this - it draws attention away from the issue that needs discussion (and I can't think of any time when Jimmy has intervened on a completely non-issue, there is always something worth discussing) and distracts everybody with lots of discussion about the extent of Jimmy's powers. You are right that Jimmy wouldn't be intervening if the issue wasn't controversial, but clearly the way Jimmy handles these things doesn't work since it causes much more drama than the intervention is worth. I think part of the problem is that it is very unclear what powers Jimmy actually has. These issues could be much better dealt with by an individual or small group that has been explicitly given the necessary powers (which Jimmy never was, he started out with ultimate power as founder and these are just the powers he has left) and is clearly accountable in some way (which Jimmy isn't - in fact, he thinks he is even less accountable than I think he is). Ideally, those powers should be given by the community, but they could be given by the board. It will be a real test of the maturity of the community - will we be willing to give someone the extensive powers that somebody needs to have? The community doesn't like giving individuals power, it goes against our entire ethos, but it has to be done. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but > instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked > extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of > themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that > Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News > (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is > the > idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on > Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular > aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of > whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better > implemented. > > First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a > responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories > wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's > uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when > their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their > aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. > This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) > were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that > Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. > But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to > infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and > to good projects. > > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. Jimmy's decision to > intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if > you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you > may > still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created > breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of > Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. > > The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of > Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a > problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and > technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if > you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons > policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal > opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. > > I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers > will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need > them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and > effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the > particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, > you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an > opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be > improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia > projects' > mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the > result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be > restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. > > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate > about > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I > would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I > recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular decisions.) It is not > the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes in projects these days > -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from intervening, which is as it > should be, and which I think speaks well of his restraint. It should be > kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was aimed at protecting > our > projects from external threat and coercion, precisely to give breathing > space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes that we all value and > believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I hope that rather > than > venting and raging about what was done in the face of an imminent and > vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking discussion of how things > can be made better. This discussion is best focused on policy, and not on > Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent efforts to protect the > Wikimedia projects and movement. That'
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 8 May 2010 17:21, Mike Godwin wrote: > I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the > consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do > so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an > opportunity to do something constructive. There isn't one. Oh if you wait about 6 months when things calm down a bit there might be an opportunity but if you look at previous such attempts when someone has just tried the brute force approach is never a good time. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
Mike Godwin wrote: > I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is > given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary > circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers > will be controversial. "Given" is an odd word choice if you look at the history of his user rights and the eroding mandate surrounding them. > Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned > out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the > community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy was the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he does. > To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about > policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually > but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. Huh. I never thought I'd see the day that Mike Godwin would be supporting an attack on free speech and free ideas through censorship. I don't say "censorship," lightly: Jimmy deliberately deleted historical pieces of art and illustrations in his rampage. And you think this is a good thing? And at what cost? "What do you call a leader with no followers? Just a guy taking a walk." He's alienated or pissed off most of his supporters, on Commons and elsewhere. The people backing him the most at this point are the ones who have a direct financial stake in his ability to generate publicity (that would be the Wikimedia Foundation). Mike, it looks like you've compromised your ideals in favor of toeing the party line, and for that, I'm pretty disappointed. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote: > > On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to > > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than > > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. > > I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass > deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in > having you expand on this. > It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet. But when I did see your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in response. I've been dealing with media strategy, both as a reporter and as someone who has to respond to media, for nearly three decades now. The issue isn't whether you can persuade Fox of anything -- Fox is not the kind of organization you can have a discussion with. > Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox > news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the > images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned > discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been > an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. I promise you, this would almost certainly not be an effective counter. If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside > influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can > enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord. I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an opportunity to do something constructive. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than > with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in having you expand on this. Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. It isn't clear to me that sacrificing our values and the story "They're guilty because they just deleted a bunch of images we called them out for" is better than not sacrificing our values and the story "We still think they're hosting child porn" but which could be countered. Still, the main issue for me is what this means outside the current firestorm. After all, isn't insulation from exactly this sort of inappropriate outside influence exactly what Sue was touting as a *major* strength of Wikimedia projects just last December at the Dalton Camp lecture? And here we see that Jimbo is vulnerable to this kind of influence, and has the ability to alter content radically. If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord. Indeed, he can apparently even make changes that don't have traction among the community. At least if Fox got to some other editor or admin they'd have to limit what changes they made, lest they be too far outside the community's comfort zone - but Jimbo can get away with just about anything. Perhaps we're not so insulated as Sue thought. I regard this as a problem, do you not? - -Mike -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvljUgACgkQst0AR/DaKHtpsACfdgKD5e7CdKzHcPm6koeyyR1Y 23kAn3TBiJ+rMIaPV7qCclwMm7L6DPFF =yp3u -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is the idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better implemented. First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and to good projects. I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than with the story Jimmy in effect created for them. Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular decisions.) It is not the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes in projects these days -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from intervening, which is as it should be, and which I think speaks well of his restraint. It should be kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was aimed at protecting our projects from external threat and coercion, precisely to give breathing space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes that we all value and believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I hope that rather than venting and raging about what was done in the face of an imminent and vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking discussion of how things can be made better. This discussion is best focused on policy, and not on Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent efforts to protect the Wikimedia projects and movement. That's where our efforts should be focused too. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailma
