On 6/13/06, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@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