On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Larry Sanger wrote:
Two more replies...
Charles Matthews wrote:
Seems to me you are letting off a fair amount of steam here. That is a traditional role of mailing lists, and in particular of wikien. Your unsubtle flaming of Jimmy here isn't likely to change too many minds; which is more than can be said for some of your past and more insidious comments on Wikipedia, in more prominent places. So go ahead, if it lances the boil.
Charles, I wrote an open letter, which has appeared on Jimmy Wales' user talk page as well as my blog, and now several other places--including this list. I'm not merely "flaming" Jimmy Wales on this list. I am publicly calling him to account. I am actually trying to achieve a certain effect, as I've explained.
Actually, though I may be an "inner circler", the combination of forum-shopping and an intent to demonise by sheer assertion is not unfamiliar to me. Come to think of it - tip of the tongue - ah yes, you've decided to treat us to some "trolling". Those who have something in mind that is not merely "effective" - as mudslinging may be - tend to approach debates in other ways.
Fred Bauder replied:
As the promoter of a competing project your interest is transparent.
Your insinuation here, Fred, deserves no reply.
I think that means you're not going to answer Fred, not that you needn't.
Yes, the bit where you write: "Suffice it to say that, outside of Wikipedia's inner circles and its Web 2.0 promoters and fans, Wikipedia's reputation for honesty and decency is rather less than sterling." You know, I think you may really feel that some people are inattentive enough not to notice the elisions here. You argue, it seems, that Jimmy Wales may not be a reliable witness in his own case. You don't, apparently, think you need to justify the claim that you are, in your own case. You start off trashing Jimmy's reputation, and then, hey presto, it's Wikipedia's reputation as an anthropomorphised whole that's in the pillory.
To quote Mr Sanger, "Wikipedia is bigger than Jimmy Wales."
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sanger sanger-lists@citizendium.org wrote:
Sam Korn replied:
What hole are we in, pray?
The reputation of Wikipedia as an endless source of scandal and dishonesty, coupled with this open letter, in which I decided to use whatever weight my views have in the "court of public opinion" to confront the project's leading light. Deny it if you must, but you have a problem on your hands.
Endless source of scandal and dishonesty? The reputation of Wikipedia? The project's leading light?
I credit none of the three.
Your concerns seem to be that Jimmy is not acknowledging your role and status as you'd like, and that the community and the Board are silent in the face of Jimmy's doing this.
That's only part of it, and not the biggest part. My biggest complaint is that Jimmy has lied about me, and a lot of people have believed him. I am determined finally to hold Jimmy Wales to account for it.
So it's personal. There's nothing wrong with that at all; from a certain point of view, I don't blame you. On the other hand, I'm not interested in getting involved.
For my part, this silence may be attributed to insouciance -- I care little for the minutiae of history now eight years old and for your personal (yes, personal) dispute with Jimmy.
Perhaps you can explain what the world at large, the Wikipedia community and I personally gain from publicly pursuing it.
Well, Sam, if the honesty or dishonesty of your leader and chief spokesman does not concern you, if you don't care that he has used his position to distort the truth for personal gain, I doubt there is anything I can say that will convince you.
I do not consider Jimmy Wikipedia's leader or its chief spokesman. Perhaps you underestimate the extent to which the project is community-led, community-driven, community-focussed; I don't know. I am not interested, no, in this personal and now-irrelevant dispute.