Wow, MI5? Haven't heard that before. This is like the "Lost" tv-show, if you miss anything nothing ever makes sense again.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html
o_0
- 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
On 22/02/2008, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, MI5? Haven't heard that before. This is like the "Lost" tv-show, if you miss anything nothing ever makes sense again.
How did you miss that one?! It was one of the best episodes. It turns out, Wikipedia is a front for the intelligence underworld - fantastic twist, I certainly didn't see it coming.
As for that "article", I particularly like the way that is doesn't seem to actually be about anything... It certainly doesn't answer the question in the title...
On 22/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for that "article", I particularly like the way that is doesn't seem to actually be about anything... It certainly doesn't answer the question in the title...
Handy hint: the decline into attacks on an editor at the end is because that editor has been one of those keeping the LaRouchians from spewing rubbish across all possible articles on the wiki.
- d.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
As for that "article", I particularly like the way that is doesn't seem to actually be about anything... It certainly doesn't answer the question in the title...
I thought everyone knew what Wikipedia was. Massively-Multiplayer Online Notepad.
On 26/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
I thought everyone knew what Wikipedia was. Massively-Multiplayer Online Notepad.
*applause*
This is actually why wikis are fantastically useful things on corporate intranets. A really BIG office whiteboard.
- d.
Ouch, that hurts. At least they know about our policies, which many people do not.
But wait, Jimbo _does_ have a lot of barnstars for creating Wikipedia... o_0
-Soxred93
On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html
o_0
- 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
Insert lulz here.
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Soxred93@gmail.com soxred93@gmail.com wrote:
Ouch, that hurts. At least they know about our policies, which many people do not.
But wait, Jimbo _does_ have a lot of barnstars for creating Wikipedia... o_0
-Soxred93
On Feb 22, 2008, at 10:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html
o_0
- 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
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html
o_0
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
What next, Steve Jobs can do what he wants with Apple? Oh noes!
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:02 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html
o_0
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
Chair of the Board is currently Florence Nibart-Devouard,
What next, Steve Jobs can do what he wants with Apple? Oh noes!
Steve jobs has to answer to shareholders.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
Chair of the Board is currently Florence Nibart-Devouard,
That's what I get for not doing my research. I take it he is still in some pretty prominent position, though.
What next, Steve Jobs can do what he wants with Apple? Oh noes!
Steve jobs has to answer to shareholders.
Jimmy has to answer to us, too. Or at least if he something stupid and didn't answer to us we'd get pissed and fork.
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
Chair of the Board is currently Florence Nibart-Devouard,
That's what I get for not doing my research. I take it he is still in some pretty prominent position, though.
He's on the board, so has one vote in board meetings. He also commands a lot of respect from the community, which counts for a lot.
What next, Steve Jobs can do what he wants with Apple? Oh noes!
Steve jobs has to answer to shareholders.
Jimmy has to answer to us, too. Or at least if he something stupid and didn't answer to us we'd get pissed and fork.
Not legally, but in practice, yes. The management of a public company are legally obliged to work in the interests of their shareholders.
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
Chair of the Board is currently Florence Nibart-Devouard,
That's what I get for not doing my research. I take it he is still in some pretty prominent position, though.
He's on the board, though not in any particular job. He has social and reputational status as the founder, and a large part of his work for Wikipedia is doing tons of press, which he does a great job at (just as well really) - for press purposes he is Mr Wikipedia, never mind the day to day realities.
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
- d.
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 9:33 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
I love how Jimbo's absolute control over Wikipedia is brought up time after time in the same paragraph. Uhm, he founded the thing and chairs the organization that is responsible for it. Duh.
Chair of the Board is currently Florence Nibart-Devouard,
That's what I get for not doing my research. I take it he is still in some pretty prominent position, though.
on 2/24/08 9:45 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
He's on the board, though not in any particular job. He has social and reputational status as the founder, and a large part of his work for Wikipedia is doing tons of press, which he does a great job at (just as well really) - for press purposes he is Mr Wikipedia, never mind the day to day realities.
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
David,
Is it possible for you to stop constantly speaking for Jimmy Wales as though you were his press agent? I believe he has a voice of his own, and the ability to type.
Marc Riddell
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is it possible for you to stop constantly speaking for Jimmy Wales as though you were his press agent? I believe he has a voice of his own, and the ability to type.
My apologies, I thought I was supplying corrected information.
- d.
On 24/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is it possible for you to stop constantly speaking for Jimmy Wales as though you were his press agent? I believe he has a voice of his own, and the ability to type.
My apologies, I thought I was supplying corrected information.
You were... Why should Jimbo have to answer for himself when this is publicly available information?
On 24/02/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is it possible for you to stop constantly speaking for Jimmy Wales as though you were his press agent? I believe he has a voice of his own, and the ability to type.
My apologies, I thought I was supplying corrected information.
You were... Why should Jimbo have to answer for himself when this is publicly available information?
I don't think David said anything out-of-place.
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Is it possible for you to stop constantly speaking for Jimmy Wales as though you were his press agent? I believe he has a voice of his own, and the ability to type.
on 2/24/08 10:25 AM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, I thought I was supplying corrected information.
This is a pattern with you, David, where Jimmy Wales is concerned. Once again, let Jimmy speak for Jimmy.
Marc
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This is a pattern with you, David, where Jimmy Wales is concerned. Once again, let Jimmy speak for Jimmy.
This must be some particularly passive-aggressive variety of "civility."
- d.
On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
This is a pattern with you, David, where Jimmy Wales is concerned. Once again, let Jimmy speak for Jimmy.
Um?
Jimmy's role in the community and the Foundation is a matter of common public discussion; we probably have an article on it somewhere. David answered a question about it, saying pretty much what anyone else understanding the issue would have said.
He certainly didn't "speak for Jimmy", in any normal use of the term... talking about someone and speaking on their behalf are very distinct things.
David Gerard wrote:
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who see his comments on either side of a dispute as so much drive-by. Given the amount of his travelling, his participation in some of these chronic debates is necessarily limited.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
There's a certain amount of hero-worshiping going on, whether he agrees with it or not. It's more like a game of Simon says. There are any number of debaters who are not past trying to win an argument saying, "But on September 30, 2004, Jimbo said ..." He may have changed his mind since, or the quotation may be out of context. Such drop-dead arguments from authority tend to circumvent whatever the real current issue.
Ec
Not sure what's funnier. http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html or the response to it here....
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who see his comments on either side of a dispute as so much drive-by. Given the amount of his travelling, his participation in some of these chronic debates is necessarily limited.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
There's a certain amount of hero-worshiping going on, whether he agrees with it or not. It's more like a game of Simon says. There are any number of debaters who are not past trying to win an argument saying, "But on September 30, 2004, Jimbo said ..." He may have changed his mind since, or the quotation may be out of context. Such drop-dead arguments from authority tend to circumvent whatever the real current issue.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Alex G wrote:
Not sure what's funnier. http://www.larouchepac.com/static/2007/12/10/what-wikipedia.html or the response to it here....
Any resemblance between my comments and those of Larouche is purely coincidental. Though I concede that Larouche may, like Jimbo, have more than his fair share of toadies.
Ec
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who see his comments on either side of a dispute as so much drive-by. Given the amount of his travelling, his participation in some of these chronic debates is necessarily limited.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
There's a certain amount of hero-worshiping going on, whether he agrees with it or not. It's more like a game of Simon says. There are any number of debaters who are not past trying to win an argument saying, "But on September 30, 2004, Jimbo said ..." He may have changed his mind since, or the quotation may be out of context. Such drop-dead arguments from authority tend to circumvent whatever the real current issue.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
He also has, separately from his Board role, the final smackdown on en:wp, which he almost never uses (it's delegated to the Arbitration Committee because Jimbo doesn't scale) and which causes great arguments every time he does.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who see his comments on either side of a dispute as so much drive-by. Given the amount of his travelling, his participation in some of these chronic debates is necessarily limited.
I find myself amazed at how outsiders think Jimbo has absolute power at Wikipedia, when if he said the sky was blue lots of people would disagree almost by reflex ... and then it's down to his powers of persuasion, same as if any of us want to convince people of something. I suppose he has a lot more ears listening to him.
There's a certain amount of hero-worshiping going on, whether he agrees with it or not. It's more like a game of Simon says. There are any number of debaters who are not past trying to win an argument saying, "But on September 30, 2004, Jimbo said ..." He may have changed his mind since, or the quotation may be out of context. Such drop-dead arguments from authority tend to circumvent whatever the real current issue.
That's surprising. I haven't seen a whole lot of this arguing from authority in a while. Could you point to any recent examples? I haven't been participating in policy debates, but the last time I remember encountering this was a year or two back.
Johnleemk
I forget what the specific issue was, but just a few days ago there was an AN/I report about someone on a spree of disruption based on a "Jimbosaidism".
That's surprising. I haven't seen a whole lot of this arguing from authority in a while. Could you point to any recent examples? I haven't been participating in policy debates, but the last time I remember encountering this was a year or two back.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's surprising. I haven't seen a whole lot of this arguing from authority in a while. Could you point to any recent examples? I haven't been participating in policy debates, but the last time I remember encountering this was a year or two back.
It happens quite often, but is generally ignored so you may not notice it.