On 6/13/06, Kernigh <xkernigh(a)netscape.net> wrote:
Cormac Lawler wrote:
As far as I see it: the community has control
over the content, and
the board bears the legal liability for the content. Jimbo's unique
part in this is that he retains the power to dictate policy where he
deems necessary, and when he thinks a project has veered off course
significantly from its goals or the goals of the foundation. I'm not
sure of what other times he has exercised this power, apart from the
recent debate about the content of Wikibooks - maybe someone else,
perhaps Jimbo himself, can clarify this.
Excuse me, can you clarify?
How does [[User:Jimbo Wales]] "retain the power to dictate policy"?
Retention requires that you already have the power. When did [[User:Jimbo
Wales]] obtain the power to dictate policy "where he deems necessary"?
I understand that someone in the Wikimedia Foundation can dictate policy in
exceptional cases where that is required, but I do not understand how the
Wikimedia Foundation is organised.
-- [[User:Kernigh]]
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
To clarify, I meant that the setting (or "dictation") of policy by
Jimbo is limited to extreme circumstances - ie., as I said, in cases
where he sees that projects are veering significantly from their
mandate or that of the Wikimedia Foundation. This has always been the
case - but I don't seem to be able to give you a good reference - the
best I can do is this page:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Governance>, in which he
says: "Final policy decisions are up to me, as always" (10th April,
2002) - ie., Jimbo is Wikipedia's equivalent of a 'benevolent
dictator' or 'GodKing' (both of which terms he doesn't like, as far as
I know). As I said, though, I don't know how many times he has
actually stepped in to set policy on any project.
The power structure of the Foundation was changed drastically by the
creation of a non-profit organisation and a board, and is continuing
to change with the formation of committees - see:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_organigram>.
Individual projects make their own policies, as always - but it has
always been (to my knowledge) that Jimbo retains the *right* to step
in on policy, where he deems necessary. But this is *not* to suggest
that Jimbo decrees policy - that would be false - Jimbo generally
places fundamental emphasis on the community (see:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles>).
Does that clarify?
Cormac