[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Charles Matthews]

Larry Sanger wrote:
> Two more replies...
>
> Charles Matthews wrote:
>   
>> Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here.  
>> That is a 
>> traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien.  Your 
>> unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; 
>> which is more than can be said for some of your past and more 
>> insidious 
>> comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places.  So go ahead, if it 
>> lances the boil.
>>     
>
> Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user
> talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this
> list.  I'm not merely "flaming" Jimmy Wales on this list.  I am publicly
> calling him to account.  I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect,
> as I've explained.
>   
Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of 
forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not 
unfamiliar to me.  Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, 
you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something 
in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to 
approach debates in other ways.

>>Fred Bauder replied:

>   
>> As the promoter of 
>> a competing project your interest is transparent.
>>     
>
> Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply.
>   
I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't.

Yes, the bit where you write: "Suffice it to say that, outside of 
Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, 
Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than 
sterling." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are 
inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, 
that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You 
don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in 
your own case.  You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey 
presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's 
in the pillory.

Cutting to the chase, it seems perfectly easy to say "a pox on both your 
houses" in the dispute on the "founder" badge; and yet to defend 
Wikipedia.  In fact it's been a good few days, with positive write-ups 
in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the London 
Observer.  Noam Cohen in the NYT mentions "there is a professional class 
of Wikipedia skeptics". If you haven't already, you should see the 
context there.

Charles