On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:16 AM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
I asked Ward about this and he said someone must be putting words in his mouth.
Cheers, Brian
Apologies, below is the correct threading.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
Well, one of them is Ward Cunningham, and there are several that have met him several times at wiki conferences. But you don't have to meet the founder of a non-profit personally to know he's doing more harm than good. I don't have to meet Phil Knight to understand the affect he has on Nike.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all
aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense.
As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff
agree
unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a
product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but
still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a
resounding
Yes.
And how many of those 20+ people actually know him?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Putting the utter stupidity of discussing Jimbo's sex life at all aside,
I
will say that this episode rings true for me in one important sense. As
an
employee of a for-profit wiki, I've had the *entire* 20+ person staff agree unanimously that they love Wikipedia despite Jimmy Wales, emphasis on
the
"despite". Part of me recognizes that all this hullabaloo is a product
of
the media's inane focus on the cult of celebrity, but still...wouldn't
we
just be better off without him? My moral compass swings to a resounding Yes.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/03/2008, Alec Conroy alecmconroy@gmail.com wrote:
The bigger problem are the allegations mentioned in the article
about
use of foundation funds. Three specific claims are made: -Jimbo tried to expense a $300+ bottle of wine -Jimbo tried to expense a massage parlor visit -Wikimedia foundation took away Jimbo's credit card. Obviously, of it any of that were true, it would be super bad, and nothing can be done but watch it play out. But, far more likely, if it's false, the foundation needs to find
out
that it's false, and then get that word out ASAP. I haven't seen
them
say it's not true. I haven't looked hard, but then-- nobody else
out
there is looking hard either. If I haven't seen "the facts" on
the
issue, neither has almost everyone else.
Sue Gardner did answer on Danny Wool's blog, fwiw.
Mostly the media interest is as cheap tabloid filler. All the London commuter papers, with the focus of the "story" being dumping people using technology. In between fabulously newsworthy reports on Kelly Osbourne's haircut.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l