Kernigh 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
_______________________________________________
Textbook-l mailing list
Textbook-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/textbook-l
This is all history. A done deal.
When
Nupedia.com was in the process of flopping due to over regulation
and over credentialization
Wikipedia.com was set up. Eventually a
committment was made to the FDL which started attracting free culture
types to assist the large number of P'hds who came over from
Nupedia.com.
Some of us started trying to get involved in the business planning at
meta to assure we could buy more servers and bandwidth when the load got
too high on Jimbo's hobby budget. It was at this time that I was
designated a troll by Langer Sanger on his way out of the project.
Jimbo responded by always assuring the mailing that he had plenty of
cash and surplus bandwidth for the Wikipedia experiment. He shifted
the active domain to
wikipedia.org and in secret with perhaps some help
from a select few employees or advisers unilaterally setup the nonprofit
in Florida.
He announced on the maililng his intent to stack the Board and then he
proceeded to do so. It was a fait accompli or done deal and there was
only limited whining and complaining on the wikipedia-l mailing list.
If you review the mailing lists since that time you will find occasional
nuggets where policy has been handed down ever since by the god-king.
There are also occasional pronouncements scattered through the various
policy pages.
Since he controls the servers and bandwidth via the Wikimedia Foundation
which he controls there is no appeal from a "Jimmy says" flash..
It was and is the contention of the remaining community locally that
adequate protection for the community from the god-king is inherent in
the ability to fork. Most people dissatisfied with this state of
affairs tend to move on, particularly after being labeled and lynched
as a "troll", "POV warrier", or other useful tag.
The way I see it, a fork is overdue.
Obviously a fork would have to address the issue of how the newly
emerging community intended to govern/manage itself. As God-Kings go
Jimbo is not all that bad so there is little to be gained by exchanging
him for another.
regards,
lazyquasar