On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What > you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end > of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in > fact, it might not even be the second, they donated in the past fundraisers > as well, larger amounts I believe. I am thinking of the 2 > Million received from Google in 2010. > I know Google gave 2 million in 2010, though I am unsure whether that makes Google influence less or more likely. To recap, posters here said that what happened to TV Tropes – i.e. Google influencing their content decisions – couldn't happen to Wikipedia. That seems rather blue-eyed. > Now, far be it for me to defend Jimmy, but the central assumption in your > polemic is, that jimmy is devoid of caring about any social issues, issues > that might even affect the identity he has created. He would have to be > paid in order to care, if not Google than someone else paying him off to > care, can't it just be that he believes in something? even if there is > a perceived threat? I know it might be hard to believe, but people have > been known to care about legislation and larger social issues from time to > time, and use the platform they have. > I'm sure Jimmy would not have been a friend of SOPA, regardless of what Google thought. But I was truly surprised to see Wikipedia jettison its "holy of holies" – NPOV – in a poll inviting participation from IPs and SPAs, and becoming a political actor. Whether the money greased the wheels or not, it was the sell-out of a principle many had signed up for. Scott put it rather well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scott_MacDonald _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l