On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Well, Sheldon, this assumes that the Foundation has authority *over* the community, which the Foundation more or less denies. So whatever corporate powers I have or don't have are likely quite different from whatever powers our community traditions give me.
Several board members have made it quite clear that they don't intend to interfere with that one way or the other.
The community predates the Foundation, and was created to hold certain legal assets and fulfill certain legal responsibilities.
Ok, I'm going to do something really filthy now and quote some comments you made more than two years ago. I realise that's unfair, and that I'm putting you on the spot here. I do think they are relevant, but if you'd just like to answer with "That was two years ago! I was drunk when I wrote that!", that's totally ok with me :)
My understanding of your role in wikipedia was pretty much formed on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy/Proposed_amendment...
Remember that? We wanted to change some arbcom-policies and we had this big vote about it? Anyway, one of the issues that was voted on was whether the arbcom should have jurisdiction over the board. If we are searching for a policy-ruling in the vast lore that is the wikipedia name-space, this seems to me to be the correct one to go to. Anyway, these are some of the comments you made (again, I realise it was 2 years ago, and I apologise. Still, this seems relevant to me):
(this is in response to the suggestion that the arbcom shouldn't be able to be mean to people on the board) "It should be noted that this is a simple fact, not a policy that can be set by a vote. Any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over board members has to be by tradition and convention, not based on a policy vote. --Jimbo Wales 04:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
(in response to a comment) "The arbcom is a delegation of my powers. If the arbcom ever did rule against me, it is very likely that I would -- as a matter of courtesy and convention -- abide by the ruling. But as a simple matter of fact, any jurisdiction that the arbcom has over the board has to come from the board not from a community vote.--Jimbo Wales 05:04, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
(in response to a comment from Jamesday) "Jamesday is just mistaken about this. The arbcom acts as a delegation of my power. Jamesday may not agree with this, but it is the way the arbcom was created.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
(in response to another comment suggesting that admins shouldn't be beholden to the board) "Admins *are* subject to the board's authority, make no mistake about it. The board has the right to set policy, and this includes removing admins, changing the powers of admins, etc.--Jimbo Wales 05:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
These comments was always kinda informed me of yours and the boards role on wikipedia. That the foundation has ultimate power over the entire community since they own the servers, but they never exercise this. Your role is that of an officer of the foundation, that you are the ultimate arbiter of everything simply because of the de jure nature of your position.
I may be misinterpreting this completely, but you have to agree that it is a very different picture you paint now than you painted two years ago. Has anything changed since then, or am I completely misunderstanding you (then, or now)?
--Oskar