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.

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: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)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.

What next, Steve Jobs can do what he wants with Apple? Oh noes!

That's what I get for not doing my research. I take it he is still in some pretty prominent position, though.

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.

On 24/02/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)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.

On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: My apologies, I thought I was supplying corrected information.

On 24/02/2008, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> 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.

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.

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(a)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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l