Oh please. Jimbo's always been rather forthright in his comments about things like trolling and people being dumb in general. This is par for the course, why-we-love-him Jimbo, no nerve struck. The clue-by-four was used for some smacking, thats all.
On 4/21/07, gjzilla@gmail.com gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Seth, please stop trolling. You have not the least clue what you are talking about, and you are simply making an ass of yourself.
--Jimbo
Seth Finkelstein wrote:
Let me disclaim that I'm not a lawyer, I have no insiderinformation, and I could simply be talking through my beard. So take
the
following for what it's worth. That being said, here's my analysis:
Don't stress over it! This is what's called "going through themotions", or recently, "Kabuki". Both sides want to appear willing to compromise, and to portray the other as intransigent. Here is what I conjecture will happen - something along these lines: Brandt will make edits to his bio that some Wikipedians will find objectionable. Flame war ensues. Brandt will collect evidence to support a claim that Wikipedians are a bunch of anonymous harassers. Admins will collect evidence to support a claim that Brandt is an unreasonable
unclean-hands
vexatious litigant. The next move is that after this has gone on for a while, Jimbo will *PERSONALLY* REBLOCK Brandt, positioning his ultra-popular, media-connected, well-supported, many lawyer-friends, self as the primary personal defendant for any lawsuit. This is amenable to Brandt, since he wants to sue Jimbo personally, not some front-man. Then stay tuned ...
I'm not saying this has been worked out in advance in acollusive fashion. But rather that each side knows what the other wants, and they've reached a game-theoretic "consensus" over it. So
sit
back for the movie, and don't waste your energy over feeling betrayed by the politics of it (you haven't really been betrayed anyway). See if I'm right.
The situation is now out of the hands of anyone but thetop players (Sadly, Wikipedia is *not* yours - whatever locutions are employed, to a first approximation, it *belongs* to Jimbo and Co.)
Let me pre-emptively try to deal with Attack Of The Strawmen:
Does Jimbo want Brandt to sue?
No, of course not - "joy shall be in heaven over one sinner
that repenteth ...". Nothing would make him (Jimbo) happier here for Brandt to see the glorious light of the Wikipedia-way and join in free labor harmony for the greaterment of all Wikiality. But it's not going to happen, and that's bloody obvious.
Are you claiming there's a backroom deal? I assure you not!
See above point about each side understanding the other.
But Brandt has been such a bad guy, how can Jimbo be so nice now?
The only thing that Jimbo will say in the near future is peace
and love, grace and forgiveness, let the prodigal be enfolded in the bosom of the community ... BECAUSE IT'S THE RUN-UP TO A LAWSUIT. The next act is when he'll say something along the lines of "With a heavy heart, I have re-blocked Brandt. I gave him every chance, but it was not to be ..."
Wikipedia is immune to all lawsuits by "Section 230"!
Well, let's say there's a good case for that proposition,but it's still not a universally held belief.
[Disclosure: I may write a column on this eventually, so I'm taking
notes,
but that would be weeks in the future if it even happens.]
Mr. Wales: What? I don't really consider this trolling. You're making it sound like he hit a nerve...
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l