On 6/13/06, Cormac Lawler <cormaggio(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Yes, though it's not clear how this applies to other projects, or
other languages. The "God-King" role derives largely from the fact
that Jimmy co-created and funded Wikipedia. The other projects were
started from within the community, some of them through elaborate
processes which involved the Board's final approval. In effect, unless
Jimmy chooses to invoke his position as Wikimedia President (which
would imply that all his actions are reviewed by the whole Board), the
only authority he has on Wikibooks is the one granted to him by the
Wikibooks community.
I think it would be foolish to make it a requirement within the
Wikimedia Foundation that any new project that is launched has to
accept Jimmy as its benevolent God-King for life. There are good
reasons we have a Board, however "stacked" it may be, for strategic
decisions. And there are reasons Board members typically recuse
themselves from decisions where there is a potential conflict of
interest (and I would argue that Wikia hosting resources which are to
be removed from Wikibooks represents a potential conflict of
interest).
Jimmy might disagree that he used any special authority; however, do
note that he asked Danny to make him a bureaucrat on Wikibooks outside
regular processes in November 2005. He then made _himself_ a sysop to
delete the Jokebook and some other materials. While I agree with the
deletions, I (and many folks on Wikibooks) disagree with the process.
Jimmy has 48 edits on Wikibooks, so he is clearly acting not as a
regular editor and contributor. Any regular editor -- even one
involved in Wikimedia Foundation matters -- making policy statements
of the same nature would probably be ignored, and certainly not get
speedy deletion rights.
The desire to provide a clear focus for Wikibooks on textbooks --
we're discussing this on a mailing list called textbook-l -- is
entirely legitimate. But this is an initiative that should clearly
come from the Board, not from Jimmy alone, possibly through a
Resolution. As for Howtos, I believe they should remain on Wikibooks,
or we should talk about creating a dedicated how-to project within the
Wikimedia Foundation. The latter would be a worthwhile effort,
especially if we involve the open source community, which has a great
need for such a resource.
Erik