According to Erik, he has no legal power. According to Phil, he has reserved a role that includes the power to make decrees like "this is unacceptable". What is going on? What can he and can't he do? Why does he ignore the merge of WP:V and WP:OR into WP:ATT (and I thought I was slow for missing it...), then appear and not only criticise it, but actually act on it: "As a first step, I am removing the claim on this page that is supercedes the other two, and restoring the other two to their rightful place in the pantheon of Wikipedia."
I don't attribute any malice to Jimbo, or anyone else for that matter. But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in Wikipedia that needs resolving. Perhaps I could pose some questions for the audience:
1) What is Jimbo's financial position with respect to Wikipedia? Does he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property? In what way, if any, does he profit from it?
2) What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
3) What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
4) Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
5) What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
6) What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
7) Are the answers to any of these questions different for the different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Thanks in advance for answers and positive discussion.
Steve
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- What is Jimbo's financial position with respect to Wikipedia?
he may get some expenses
Does he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property?
like any editor he holds the copyright on his edits and uploads.
In what way, if any, does he profit from it?
None.
- What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
he is a board member.
- What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
- Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
Jimbo's power is due mostly to the community accepting his pronouncements
- What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
The board doesn't normally get involved in day to day matters. It is of course impossible to say what would have differed if jimbo had stayed as chair. Changes since the switchover are basically the foundation becoming far less ad-hoc.
- What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
Up to you. You may find yourself rather outnumbered if you don't but not always.
- Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Other projects tend to be more independent of the board and the like anyway. This extends to Jimbo.
geni wrote:
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Does he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property?
like any editor he holds the copyright on his edits and uploads.
The hardware is owned by the corporation.
- What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
he is a board member.
...and chairman emeritus.
- What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right?
Formally, he has no such rights. Such actions are recognized on the basis on an historical moral right. Outright attacks on his positions are not likely to succeed. Where Jimbo has taken a peculiar stand on an issue diplomacy is warranted.
Can he confer this right on others?
That wouldn't make sense. This is not a question of rules, but of charisma. God-kings are uncreatable.
How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
You guess. :-)
- Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
Jimbo's power is due mostly to the community accepting his pronouncements
The restructure of the Board has played to Jimbo's strong suit: promoting Wikipedia in all corners of the world. This is bound to affect his ability to be online at any given time. Others are much better at maintaining financial records, or keeping members informed, or doing those other mundane tasks that keep a large organization functioning.
- What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
The board doesn't normally get involved in day to day matters. It is of course impossible to say what would have differed if jimbo had stayed as chair. Changes since the switchover are basically the foundation becoming far less ad-hoc.
That's very important in such a large group of people.
- What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
Up to you. You may find yourself rather outnumbered if you don't but not always.
Having had the experience some years back of working for a flamboyand person who loved being in the media, I quicly learned not to give too much weight to what is said to the media, and to give even less weight to what people thought was being said. Much of what is said to the media in a first instance off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus.
- Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Other projects tend to be more independent of the board and the like anyway. This extends to Jimbo.
The fact that AFAIK Jimbo is unilingual is a big factor in that.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Where Jimbo has taken a peculiar stand on an issue diplomacy is warranted.
And diplomacy is something that works very well. I have many faults, but refusal to listen is not really among them. I make mistakes, but I am calm and educable. I try to land in the center on most issues, rather than staking out any sort of extreme positions. And I try to represent all parts of the community's interest in the broad building of consensus as being better than gang warfare.
On 21/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I try to land in the center on most issues, rather than staking out any sort of extreme positions. And I try to represent all parts of the community's interest in the broad building of consensus as being better than gang warfare.
Would this involve taking action if that subset of the Wikipedia community who choose to be involved in decision-making took decisions that were not sensible?
Wikipedia is not a democracy. This is both a good and a bad thing; I'm concerned that thus far we've just been fortunate in the balance of decision-makers. If more rational decision-makers stopped being involved, Wikipedia will run into problems.
Certainly one could argue that certain categories of action are restricted to admins, who have to be approved as such. The flaw is that they are approved by the subset of existing admins who choose to be involved in those decisions.
Long term this will undoubtedly result in a definite "type" of person who is involved in decision-making on Wikipedia; it won't be representative (which as I mentioned, is not entirely a bad thing, but there are reasons people often choose a democratic model).
I've serious concerns about the direction Wikipedia is going, I don't think it is sustainable.
Zoney
On 22/03/07, Zoney zoney.ie@gmail.com wrote:
I've serious concerns about the direction Wikipedia is going, I don't think it is sustainable.
As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a large volunteer organisation.
Are there relevant antecedents to what we're doing here? The OED ran (and runs) on volunteer contributions, but doesn't have an emergent bureaucracy of volunteers.
- d.
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a large volunteer organisation.
Are there relevant antecedents to what we're doing here? The OED ran (and runs) on volunteer contributions, but doesn't have an emergent bureaucracy of volunteers.
Hmm. Most volunteer organisations start with structures dictating officers, power structures, decision making etc. We haven't needed that, but we're starting to need to formalise our decision making a bit.
Steve
on 3/22/07 9:49 AM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm. Most volunteer organisations start with structures dictating officers, power structures, decision making etc. We haven't needed that,
Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in building and defining the solid structure within which a dynamic, free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process - can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there. Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a solid canvass.
There seems to be a fear that creating such "formal" elements will somehow limit or interfere with the creative process and stifle such creativity. Not so!
but we're starting to need to formalise our decision making a bit.
Yes! That is where everyone gets involved. That is a part of what the culture of an organization is all about.
Marc Riddell
On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in building and defining the solid structure within which a dynamic, free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process
- can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there.
Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a solid canvass.
Yep. A constitution.
- d.
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
Here's where I disagree with you, Steve. These elements are crucial in building and defining the solid structure within which a dynamic, free-flowing organization can function. Once these absolutes are set, no amount of "chaos" - which is a necessary part of any truly creative process
- can threaten the existence of the organization. Home will always be there.
Without these minimal "confines" everything flies away. A painting needs a solid canvass.
Yep. A constitution.
I tend to feel that would be overkill. A Magna Carta might be a better aproach.
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. A constitution.
I tend to feel that would be overkill. A Magna Carta might be a better aproach.
Ooooh ... could be good.
- d.
On 22/03/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 22/03/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yep. A constitution.
I tend to feel that would be overkill. A Magna Carta might be a better aproach.
Ooooh ... could be good.
Magna Carta: a document of which at least three versions were made at the time; which was reissued by every subsequent leader for a century; and where almost every item involved had the effect of confirming the status quo with regards to something insanely trivial and obscure.
Given what the community would make of it, the analogy could be more apt than anticipated...
Magna Carta: a document of which at least three versions were made at the time; which was reissued by every subsequent leader for a century; and where almost every item involved had the effect of confirming the status quo with regards to something insanely trivial and obscure.
Given what the community would make of it, the analogy could be more apt than anticipated...
And, if memory serves, about 90% of it is one off agreements relevant only to the time it was signed.
On Mar 22, 2007, at 4:24 AM, David Gerard wrote:
As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a large volunteer organisation.
Are there relevant antecedents to what we're doing here? The OED ran (and runs) on volunteer contributions, but doesn't have an emergent bureaucracy of volunteers.
We are breaking new ground. There has never been a project like this before of similar size, reach and principles.
As they say: "we are on our own, baby". And we better accept that as a fact, if we want to move forward and not stall, that is.
-- Jossi
on 3/22/07 11:18 AM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
large volunteer organisation.
David,
Please disregard my earlier response to this. It is quite clear. I've got to stop responding to emails before my first cup of coffee :-).
Marc
On 22/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/22/07 11:18 AM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
As I said, I think most of the problems are emergent behaviour of a
large volunteer organisation.
Please disregard my earlier response to this. It is quite clear. I've got to stop responding to emails before my first cup of coffee :-).
hee :-)
Quite a lot of what people wring hands about being utterly irretrievably broken about Wikipedia or Wikimedia just strikes me as ordinary volunteer organisation [[SNAFU]] ;-)
(I would have applied for Bastique's new job except sysadmins in London are paid by the dumptruck full of cash ...)
- d.
On 21/03/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
geni wrote:
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Can he confer this right on others?
That wouldn't make sense. This is not a question of rules, but of charisma. God-kings are uncreatable.
In practice, open-source and open-content projects tend to give a great deal of respect and deference to the founder. This tends to work out fine most of the time, and where it doesn't the founder may quit or there may be a fork. (See [[fork (software)]], which I wrote a lot of.)
On en:wp, Jimbo expressly handed some strong powers over to the Arbitration Committee, on the basis that Jimbo wasn't scaling.
He still strongly concerns himself with how en:wp is going and working. And that's arguably appropriate even as a Foundation board member, because it's the WMF's flagship project, gets most of the public attention and takes up a whole database server to itself.
How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
You guess. :-)
He will often say "speaking as a community member" when he is, e.g. on Chacor's recent RFA. Which I suppose means use your good sense :-) There is the problem that every cough he coughs is noted down and overanalysed by devotees of Jimbomancy.
Jimbo's power is due mostly to the community accepting his pronouncements
The restructure of the Board has played to Jimbo's strong suit: promoting Wikipedia in all corners of the world. This is bound to affect his ability to be online at any given time. Others are much better at maintaining financial records, or keeping members informed, or doing those other mundane tasks that keep a large organization functioning.
Yep. PR person for the Foundation and for en:wp is an incredibly important job and it's good for en:wp that he's right into that.
- What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
The board doesn't normally get involved in day to day matters. It is of course impossible to say what would have differed if jimbo had stayed as chair. Changes since the switchover are basically the foundation becoming far less ad-hoc.
That's very important in such a large group of people.
It's also good that it shows there isn't a succession problem, i.e. that the organisation can do fine if its founder is hit by a bus or whatever. That's a *big* what-if for a growing organisation, particularly one running a now-famous website.
(When I started with Wikipedia in late 2003, we were #500 in the world. I was *really impressed*. Now we're top-10. We're mainstream. HOLY CRAP.)
- What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
Up to you. You may find yourself rather outnumbered if you don't but not always.
Having had the experience some years back of working for a flamboyand person who loved being in the media, I quicly learned not to give too much weight to what is said to the media, and to give even less weight to what people thought was being said. Much of what is said to the media in a first instance off the cuff and not necessarily supported by a broad consensus.
I giggle hysterically when I see people calling the press a "reliable source." The press is an *easily checked* source. That's quite different from having any connection to reality or having accurately quoted anything anyone has ever said. When doing WMF press, I've learnt to speak almost exclusively in either unambiguous soundbites or in almost-unquotable waffle.
- Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Other projects tend to be more independent of the board and the like anyway. This extends to Jimbo.
The fact that AFAIK Jimbo is unilingual is a big factor in that.
Yeah. This is BTW another reason why Florence as chair, and Erik, Oskar and Jan-Bart on the board is good - so that the WMF isn't Americocentric even by accident, despite being US-based and having been founded by an American.
- d.
geni wrote:
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
- Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
Jimbo's power is due mostly to the community accepting his pronouncements
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly? That is not a measure of respect or even deference except perhaps by a majority of admins.
SKL
On 3/23/07, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly?
Yup done it.
On 3/23/07, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly?
People disagree with Jimbo all the time, and unlike many others in similar position, he usually feels compelled to answer questions and deal with criticism directly, implementing compromises where they can be found. But the issue wasn't really about his provenance, but the limitations of his human powers to be aware and in charge of everything - in this recent case, on matters of particular (but important) policy and process. Is the community *not to be trusted with certain policy changes? And is Jimbo therefore expected to take a more direct of formalized role in this area?
-Stevertigo
geni wrote:
On 3/23/07, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly?
Yup done it.
In a separate email I mentioned something about our worst trolls under my personal protection. I just got scared that someone might think I mean people like geni, who have had plenty of disagreements with me.
NO. Geni is (in my opinion) often a pain in the neck, but also a very valued member of the community who needs no protection or support from me to do very well.
But the point is, I would never want to have an environment where "disagreeing with Jimbo" is a bannable offense. That is less likely now, of course, than ever before, because we have functioning community institutions which are quite properly growing in power so that I am less and less needed over time.
--Jimbo
On 24/03/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/24/07 5:21 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I would never want to have an environment where "disagreeing with Jimbo" is a bannable offense.
Thank you for this, too.
An environment where criticism is possible is necessary to us not sucking. Fortunately, Wikipedia is pretty good at self-examination.
Jimbo's a very smart guy, but with Wikipedia I think he's finally found a reliable way to meet lots of people who make him feel really dumb by comparison ;-)
It surprises me when our odder critics claim Wikipedia is the personality cult of Jimbo Wales. I really can't imagine L. Ron Hubbard putting up with the crap Jimbo does ...
- d.
On 23/03/07, ScottL scott@mu.org wrote:
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly? That is not a measure of respect or even deference except perhaps by a majority of admins.
Um, yes. Frequently.
- d.
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly? That is not a measure of respect or even deference except perhaps by a majority of admins.
Probably depends on what you mean by "go against him". Disagreeing with Jimbo is not a bannable offence (I expect Jimbo would unblock anyone blocked for such a reason). Going against policy, as defined by consensus, is a bannable offence (or at least can be), and since Jimbo's opinion holds a lot of sway with most Wikipedians, Jimbo's suggestions for policy generally have consensus.
In other words, if you go against Jimbo, you are generally going against the community, and that is what gets you banned.
on 3/23/07 6:45 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
since Jimbo's opinion holds a lot of sway with most Wikipedians, Jimbo's suggestions for policy generally have consensus.
In other words, if you go against Jimbo, you are generally going against the community, and that is what gets you banned.
You are saying a great deal here. Isn't it time to take a critical look at this?
Marc Riddell
On 3/24/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/23/07 6:45 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
since Jimbo's opinion holds a lot of sway with most Wikipedians, Jimbo's suggestions for policy generally have consensus.
In other words, if you go against Jimbo, you are generally going against the community, and that is what gets you banned.
You are saying a great deal here. Isn't it time to take a critical look at this?
Marc Riddell
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, since the laconic nature of your posts isn't exactly always conducive to clarity. If you're saying what I think you're saying, I don't see any point in disagreeing with Jimbo for the sake of disagreeing with him. The reason why Jimbo's GodKingness has been around for so long is because the community does generally agree with him.
There of course have been times when the community disagreed, and in such cases Jimbo eventually reversed himself. (IIRC, this occurred at one point in the userbox wheel wars when Jimbo erroneously banned a few people.) But the point is, as a general rule, it's good to listen to Jimbo because it somehow turns out that his views often remarkably approximate the community's views.
Johnleemk
on 3/23/07 9:18 PM, John Lee at johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, since the laconic nature of your posts isn't exactly always conducive to clarity.
John,
I have always felt that the depth of a statement is more important than its length. Here, too, size matters :-).
Marc
ScottL wrote:
Is this an honest assessment? Could a non-admin (or even a single admin) go against him and not get banned? Honestly? That is not a measure of respect or even deference except perhaps by a majority of admins.
Of course. People go against me all the time and don't get banned. Indeed, some of our worst trolls who have attacked me most viciously have survived quite a long time under my personal protection.
If I went bonkers and banned someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong other than disagree with me in some way, I hope that the ArbCom would quietly and firmly tell me that I am bonkers. I would listen.
--Jimbo
on 3/24/07 5:20 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Of course. People go against me all the time and don't get banned. Indeed, some of our worst trolls who have attacked me most viciously have survived quite a long time under my personal protection.
If I went bonkers and banned someone who had done absolutely nothing wrong other than disagree with me in some way, I hope that the ArbCom would quietly and firmly tell me that I am bonkers. I would listen.
--Jimbo
Thank you for this.
Marc Riddell
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I don't attribute any malice to Jimbo, or anyone else for that matter. But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in Wikipedia that needs resolving. Perhaps I could pose some questions for the audience:
I don't think this line of questioning is helpful. Jimbo's role in the community is based not just on his early leadership but his respect and trust by the community *at large. His position is one of *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long as he is active.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
respect and trust by the community *at large. His position is one of *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long as he is active.
"His authority is based on trust" is a perfectly acceptable answer, if that's what it is. But how does that help all the newbies who haven't even heard of him? Surely we can define this a bit more precisely.
I realise that in my original post it perhaps sounded like I was challenging his authority. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it, and understand what is different now from, say, 2 years ago. We hear from him much less frequently, but when we do, it seems to be more disruptive.
Steve
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
"His authority is based on trust" is a perfectly acceptable answer, if that's what it is. But how does that help all the newbies who haven't even heard of him? Surely we can define this a bit more precisely.
If newbies haven't yet heard of him, they will soon enough.
I realise that in my original post it perhaps sounded like I was challenging his authority. I'm not. I'm just trying to understand it, and understand what is different now from, say, 2 years ago. We hear from him much less frequently, but when we do, it seems to be more disruptive.
I don't have answers to all these questions, but if I were actually interested, I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have answers to all these questions, but if I were actually interested, I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
I don't see how a private discusson can resolve a public confusion, unless I was to report the results of that "private" discussion afterwards.
Steve
On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/20/07 9:36 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
Doesn't a discussion that involves everyone belong where everyone can participate?
Noone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia. So I dont see how his decisions involve "everyone".
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/20/07 9:36 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
Doesn't a discussion that involves everyone belong where everyone can participate?
Noone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia. So I dont see how his decisions involve "everyone".
-Stevertigo
So, would you say that Jimbo does not have a right to edit Wikipedia? If so, how is Jimbo's right to edit different from anyone else's?
-Rich
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/20/07 9:36 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
Doesn't a discussion that involves everyone belong where everyone can participate?
Noone has a "right" to edit Wikipedia. So I dont see how his decisions involve "everyone".
I'm hoping that I'm just misinterpreting your response and it's not as nitpicky as it seems like to me. How about substituting "everyone who edits Wikipedia" instead of an unqualified "everyone?" That's what I assumed was meant but perhaps it needs to be made explicit.
Since Jimbo's actions do affect everyone who edits Wikipedia, regardless of whether you call that editing capability a "right" or a "privilege" or whatever, I think it's quite reasonable for we the editors to be discussing just what actions Jimbo is capable of and what the implications of them may be. The fact that some trolls or other ne'er-do-wells may also be listening in is unfortunate but I don't see how to avoid it and I certainly don't see preventing it as something worth squelching the discussion over.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Since Jimbo's actions do affect everyone who edits Wikipedia, regardless of whether you call that editing capability a "right" or a "privilege" or whatever, I think it's quite reasonable for we the editors to be discussing just what actions Jimbo is capable of and what the implications of them may be. The fact that some trolls or other ne'er-do-wells may also be listening in is unfortunate but I don't see how to avoid it and I certainly don't see preventing it as something worth squelching the discussion over.
Well said. :)
--Jimbo
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:36 PM, stevertigo wrote:
but if I were actually interested, I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
Why?
Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone. An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.
-- Jossi
On 3/20/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone. An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.
If people are confused, that is their problem. Responses can come in many forms, in the form of no response for example.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
If people are confused, that is their problem.
No, if people are confused about how Wikipedia works and that impedes their ability to contribute positively, that's *our* problem.
Steve
If people are confused, that is their problem.
No, if people are confused about how Wikipedia works and that impedes their ability to contribute positively, that's *our* problem.
Steve
Listen, why don't you all stop arguing. It really serves no purpose. If you don't want to discuss something, then don't discuss it. But trying to prevent others from discussing it is futile. There are a few specific times when it is absolutely necessary to discuss something privately; discussing the position of someone is not one of those situations.
Please, only contribute if you actually have something to say. --Mets501
On 3/20/07, Mets501 mets501wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Listen, why don't you all stop arguing. It really serves no purpose.
You are welcome to your opinion.
If you don't want to discuss something, then don't discuss it. But trying to prevent others from discussing it is futile.
...
Please, only contribute if you actually have something to say.
Hence you write to tell us to not discuss something, based on a view that "trying to prevent others" from having a discussion "is futile"? Am I the only one who sees the complete contradiction here?
There are a few specific times when it is absolutely necessary to discuss something privately; discussing the position of someone is not one of those situations.
So you do support the discussion, and yet you youself had nothing to contribute except to criticize the course of the discussion? How strange.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone. An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.
If people are confused, that is their problem. Responses can come in many forms, in the form of no response for example.
Stonewalling is indeed an effective tactic. The only problem with it is that it pisses people off just as effectively.
Ec
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:36 PM, stevertigo wrote:
but if I were actually interested, I would ask Jimbo directly in private email, where this discussion belongs.
Why?
Transparency is paramount. The intervention at WP:ATT has left me quite confused about his role. And by the look of it, I am not alone. An unambiguous response to these questions would be very much appreciated as it will dispel the confusion that clearly exists.
I hope that your questions have been answered. It is confusing to be sure. I think no one really understands it.
--Jimbo
stevertigo wrote:
I don't think this line of questioning is helpful. Jimbo's role in the community is based not just on his early leadership but his respect and trust by the community *at large. His position is one of *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long as he is active.
To semi-play devil's advocate, how much of that is because he always has been as opposed to a perhaps mistaken belief that he ultimately runs the show? It's not like anyone really bothers to question him, not that such questioning is likely to garner a response given how busy he ends up being.
I mean, part of me wonders whether his "God-king" status is supported simply because he's Jimbo and always has been, or because people honestly think that's best for the project.
-Jeff
on 3/20/07 9:25 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this line of questioning is helpful. Jimbo's role in the community is based not just on his early leadership but his respect and trust by the community *at large. His position is one of *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long as he is active.
This is not answering a question - it is avoiding one.
Marc Riddell
On 3/21/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/20/07 9:25 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this line of questioning is helpful. Jimbo's role in the community is based not just on his early leadership but his respect and trust by the community *at large. His position is one of *trust, and In order for his role to have meaning, this role needs to remain largely undefined and unconstrained by any set boundaries or constitutional delineations. He can negate consensus, simply because he can, as he has in the past, and as he will continue to for as long as he is active.
This is not answering a question - it is avoiding one.
Marc Riddell
What's the question? If the question is, "What authority does Jimbo have?" the answer is spelled out quite clearly: "He has no authority beyond that which he has been granted implicitly through the trust of the community."
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
What's the question? If the question is, "What authority does Jimbo have?" the answer is spelled out quite clearly: "He has no authority beyond that which he has been granted implicitly through the trust of the community."
And I ask for no more. We have a set of longstanding traditions about how things are done, and I think that for the most part, these traditions are workable and useful.
I think that I serve a useful role in, for example, this situation with WP:ATT. A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted. I view my role in Wikipedia as being primarily about the defense of the broad community and "rule of law" rather than being about any particular policy or faction. (Outside of certain things that I think are foundational and beyond question and non-negotiable like NPOV.)
People tend to get very agitated from time to time. And then we tend to calm down and talk things over and people see that I am hardly the raging lunatic that at least some people seem to think. I like to move slowly and thoughtfully, and I like for the community to move slowly and thoughtfully.
If the community ever seeks to depose me from my special role, I hope that this will happen via a thoughtful process, but I actually think it is completely unnecessary. It is my intention to fade into a purely symbolic position over time.
In a case like the present one, there is actually no really good answer about how policy shifts become official. In the case of 3RR, we had an excellent approach... a broad disucssion, a community vote, and then my personal certification that policy had changed. This led to a clear and definable policy shift, without a wheel war or factions fighting endlessly.
Such orderly processes are beneficial, but we have not designed them in all cases.
In the current case, it looks like the right way forward is exactly the 3RR way. A broad community discussion to shed light on the very good work done by a group of people laboring away on WP:ATT and related pages, and then a poll to assess the feelings of the community as best we can, and then we can have a final certification of the results.
In the future, such a process should be made more formalized I think (as we get bigger and bigger, it is harder and harder to just chat with everyone and then make it so), and quite likely the ArbCom (who, after all, ultimately make decisions about what "counts" as policy through their enforcement of it) should be the ones certifying.
But we don't have to solve all the big picture constitutional questions when we can simply move forward usefully in the meantime.
--Jimbo
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think that I serve a useful role in, for example, this situation with WP:ATT. A major policy restructuring took place in a way that a huge number of very active and high quality editors were not consulted. I view my role in Wikipedia as being primarily about the defense of the
<snip>
is completely unnecessary. It is my intention to fade into a purely symbolic position over time.
IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role? Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months of work?
Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch. If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is a very good thing to have.
In a case like the present one, there is actually no really good answer about how policy shifts become official. In the case of 3RR, we had an excellent approach... a broad disucssion, a community vote, and then my personal certification that policy had changed. This led to a clear and definable policy shift, without a wheel war or factions fighting endlessly.
If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?
But we don't have to solve all the big picture constitutional questions when we can simply move forward usefully in the meantime.
Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
IMVHO, there is a conflict between these two ideas: you are simultaneously filling a need, and hoping to retire from it. If your role becomes purely symbolic, then who will fill the hands-on role? Who will wade into a debate on WP:ATT and fearlessly revert 5 months of work?
Ah! Good questions but I think we have experience and therefore good answers.
There is *tension* between the two, to be sure. I am sometimes yelled at for not taking an active enough role, and sometimes for being too active. And I don't take that as a sign that I am doing everything right, but as a sign that I can and do make errors in both directions. I do have the great virtue of boring reasonableness, though, so I generally don't go too far in any one direction.
Here is an experience: I used to be (years ago) the only person who could ban people. I never delegated that power to Larry Sanger, in part because he would have banned people who were good contributors who simply had the audacity to disagree with Larry. (Cunctator was a prime example.)
We wondered: gee, what can we do, who else would have the symbolic authority to wade in and finally ban a difficult user? And we came up with a community institution to handle it: the ArbCom. And there was fear about this: I had proven myself to be basically non-insane with banning policy (though of course not everyone agreed with everything, but I don't think anyone seriously thought I was a total tyrant nor a troll coddler)... but would an ArbCom go out of control?
Over time we have slowly built the ArbCom into a viable institution that works reasonably well.
In a case like this one: we can think, gee, but who could wade in and put a delay and ask for a broader community vote on a major policy. And I think the answer is again: institutionalization of a process.
But, you know, institutionalization really really sucks in some major ways. So we like to keep it lightweight and as free from rules lawyering as possible. So we need to experiment and have the ability to turn back from experiments that went wrong.
Since the start, you've been the leader, as well as the token monarch. If you move purely into the token monarch role, can we get a new leader somehow? I think we will need one - there are so many deunifying processes in Wikipedia, that a powerful, unifying leader is a very good thing to have.
My daughter said something fun to me the other night. We were playing and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world."
Me: "Hmm?" Her: "Wikipedia. I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new founder of Wikipedia."
Well, she's 6 years old, but maybe we could have a hereditary constitutional monarch. (This is just me joking around, please no panic. But be nice to Kira if you ever meet her. ha ha.)
Seriously, could we have an elected President who could take such actions? Wow, that is really hard for me to imagine. I would not wish such a job on anyone. It would be all the bad parts of being the Jimbo of the Wikipedia and none of the good parts.
If I understand you, you're saying that we don't technically need your rubberstamp to get a policy through, but from a practical perspective it helps. Is this symptomatic of an immature policy-making structure?
Yes. Absolutely. We have no other mechanism right now to say when something is or is not law.
Of course, England has the same thing. The Queen has to approve each law. The monarch has done so without exception since, well, I don't know right now, but you could look it up in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent
Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".
I don't think any work was wiped out at all! At the present time the only change from yesterday at this time is that WP:V and WP:NOR do not redirect to sections in WP:ATT, but instead declare themselves to be merely explanatory whereas WP:ATT is canonical.
Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a slight editorial change.
--Jimbo
On 21/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
We wondered: gee, what can we do, who else would have the symbolic authority to wade in and finally ban a difficult user? And we came up with a community institution to handle it: the ArbCom. And there was fear about this: I had proven myself to be basically non-insane with banning policy (though of course not everyone agreed with everything, but I don't think anyone seriously thought I was a total tyrant nor a troll coddler)... but would an ArbCom go out of control? Over time we have slowly built the ArbCom into a viable institution that works reasonably well.
Speaking from the inside (as a former arbitrator and still being on the list to kibitz), it helps that the AC has a lot of experienced people who are *very far* from agreeing with each other on everything. It's a bit like looking into a sausage factory at times. But everyone respects each other and the results mostly work.
But, you know, institutionalization really really sucks in some major ways. So we like to keep it lightweight and as free from rules lawyering as possible. So we need to experiment and have the ability to turn back from experiments that went wrong.
This is why Wikipedia not working on precedent is important.
My daughter said something fun to me the other night. We were playing and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world." Me: "Hmm?" Her: "Wikipedia. I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new founder of Wikipedia." Well, she's 6 years old, but maybe we could have a hereditary constitutional monarch. (This is just me joking around, please no panic. But be nice to Kira if you ever meet her. ha ha.)
Make sure she reads [[Charles I]] ;-p
Yes. Absolutely. We have no other mechanism right now to say when something is or is not law. Of course, England has the same thing. The Queen has to approve each law. The monarch has done so without exception since, well, I don't know right now, but you could look it up in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent
A constitution may help with this - the set of policies on policies. That's how I think of NPOV, NOR, V (or the new role of ATT) and NPA, AGF and arguably BITE - new rules that contradict those rules are probably a really bad idea.
Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a slight editorial change.
Everything should keep working much the same without outrageous surprise.
- d.
On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:24 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
My daughter said something fun to me the other night. We were playing and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world."
Me: "Hmm?" Her: "Wikipedia. I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new founder of Wikipedia."
Knowing how own my kids think and act, that is not outside the realm of plausibility!
-- Jossi
on 3/21/07 4:24 AM, Jimmy Wales at jwales@wikia.com wrote:
My daughter said something fun to me the other night. We were playing and she said in a voice of quiet power: "I will conquer your world."
Me: "Hmm?" Her: "Wikipedia. I will conquer Wikipedia and you will make me the new founder of Wikipedia."
Good for her! Always remember - Kids take notes.
Marc
This bit of exchange happened at the end of a longer email but I wanted to feature it more prominently in case other people had the misunderstanding that I have somehow "wiped out months of work".
The removal of two redirects does not amount to wiping out months of work.
Steve wrote:
Well, with respect, the WP:ATT situation presents a pretty strong case for solving some of these problems urgently. Wiping out months of work is a big price to pay for "moving forward usefully".
I don't think any work was wiped out at all! At the present time the only change from yesterday at this time is that WP:V and WP:NOR do not redirect to sections in WP:ATT, but instead declare themselves to be merely explanatory whereas WP:ATT is canonical.
Therefore, with respect to the situation yesterday, there has only be a slight editorial change.
--Jimbo
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
This bit of exchange happened at the end of a longer email but I wanted to feature it more prominently in case other people had the misunderstanding that I have somehow "wiped out months of work".
The removal of two redirects does not amount to wiping out months of work.
Yes, I was unfairly flippant there, I'm sorry.
Steve
In the future, such a process should be made more formalized I think (as we get bigger and bigger, it is harder and harder to just chat with everyone and then make it so), and quite likely the ArbCom (who, after all, ultimately make decisions about what "counts" as policy through their enforcement of it) should be the ones certifying.
So you're suggesting that ArbCom have a role in policy making similar to the role Bureaucrats have in RfAs? They come along after all the discussion and determine if a consensus exists? I like that idea, it's very easy to implement and would solve quite a lot of the confusion that almost always surrounds changes in policy.
Now, the question is, how do we decide about changing the policy about changing policy? This might be a good example of a time when it's best for a GodKing to step in...
On 21/03/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
In the future, such a process should be made more formalized I think (as we get bigger and bigger, it is harder and harder to just chat with everyone and then make it so), and quite likely the ArbCom (who, after all, ultimately make decisions about what "counts" as policy through their enforcement of it) should be the ones certifying.
So you're suggesting that ArbCom have a role in policy making similar to the role Bureaucrats have in RfAs? They come along after all the discussion and determine if a consensus exists? I like that idea, it's very easy to implement and would solve quite a lot of the confusion that almost always surrounds changes in policy.
The AC has done this for a while anyway - "Principles" are the AC trying to sensibly state what they think the rules are.
Now, the question is, how do we decide about changing the policy about changing policy? This might be a good example of a time when it's best for a GodKing to step in...
To suggest things cluefully, more or less strongly ;-)
- d.
The AC has done this for a while anyway - "Principles" are the AC trying to sensibly state what they think the rules are.
The principles are usually statements (sometimes interpretations) of existing policy, AC doesn't create new policy with them. AC will only refer to something in the principles if it is already accepted as policy.
on 3/20/07 9:12 PM, Steve Bennett at stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
According to Erik, he has no legal power. According to Phil, he has reserved a role that includes the power to make decrees like "this is unacceptable". What is going on? What can he and can't he do? Why does he ignore the merge of WP:V and WP:OR into WP:ATT (and I thought I was slow for missing it...), then appear and not only criticise it, but actually act on it: "As a first step, I am removing the claim on this page that is supercedes the other two, and restoring the other two to their rightful place in the pantheon of Wikipedia."
I don't attribute any malice to Jimbo, or anyone else for that matter. But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in Wikipedia that needs resolving. Perhaps I could pose some questions for the audience:
- What is Jimbo's financial position with respect to Wikipedia? Does
he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property? In what way, if any, does he profit from it?
What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
- Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
- What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
- What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
- Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Thanks in advance for answers and positive discussion.
Steve
Great questions. And the beginning of what I hope will be a great and honest discussion. Every successful organization that has had a strong, charismatic founder has had to eventually come to terms with many of these same questions. Unless they are confronted, wrestled with, and answered honestly, that organization may grow in size - but not stature.
Marc Riddell
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
- What is Jimbo's financial position with respect to Wikipedia? Does
he own any part of servers, software, intellectual property? In what way, if any, does he profit from it?
Jimmy does not own any part of the servers, software, or "intellectual property". These assets are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with offices based in St. Petersburg, Florida. Jimmy does not stand to benefit financially from the activities of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is indeed obligated to recuse himself from any decision making processes where such a personal benefit could result (such as Board resolutions affecting Wikia, a separate for-profit company he co-founded).
- What is Jimbo's legal position with respect to Wikipedia?
Jimmy is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which in total has 7 members. The Board of Trustees is the governing authority of WMF which primarily defines strategy, coordinates fundraising, and broadly oversees operations of hired staff. Some Board members (notably the Board Chair and Jimmy) also have an important role as media representatives, though this is not presently described formally.
- What is Jimbo's position as an editor on Wikipedia? Does he have
the right to ignore consensus? What happens if people disregard his right? Can he confer this right on others? How do we distinguish between Jimbo as normal editor and Jimbo as editor with godlike powers?
- Does Jimbo have a leadership position, and if so, of what? Whom
does he lead? In what way? Is that leadership contestable?
This is for the English Wikipedia community to work out. The Wikimedia Foundation takes no position on these questions.
- What concrete changes have taken place as a result of Jimbo being
succeeded by Anthere as chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Board? What is the day-to-day effect of these changes?
See: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Bylaws#ARTICLE_V_-_OFFICERS_AND_DUTIES
- What is Jimbo's position as a spokesperson for Wikipedia or the
Wikimedia Foundation? What does it mean when Jimbo tells the press that some change "will probably be going ahead"? Are we to interpret that as an order to be obeyed?
There have been some misunderstandings about this, and we agree on the Board-level that it needs to be clear when Jimmy is speaking as a member of the English Wikipedia community, and when he is speaking as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. In the case of the credentials issue, for instance, the Foundation had taken no official position.
- Are the answers to any of these questions different for the
different language Wikipedias, or other Wikimedia projects?
Only insofar as they are separate communities which may give different answers to questions 3) and 4).
On 3/21/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
But clearly, there is widespread confusion about Jimbo's role in Wikipedia that needs resolving.
At Foundation level, he's a board member. But you can put that out of your mind for the minute because it's not presently relevant.
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
His functional role has lessened over time as it is further delegated out into the community. His role as a leader within the community remains.
Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't see how a private discusson can resolve a public confusion, unless I was to report the results of that "private" discussion afterwards.
Privacy is an outward indication of respect. Jimbo of course deserves respect just like any other community member. Moreso even. Hence these public discussions about a good person and outstanding leader have the appearance of being personal attacks. Though thats probably not your intent, people in the core community cannot rule that out.
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though, just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though, just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Can we make a list of Jimbo's well-defined extraordinary powers?
Steve
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though, just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
Ok, we're getting somewhere. Can we make a list of Jimbo's well-defined extraordinary powers?
He can void the ArbCom, in whole and in part, including the status of its members and its rulings. I don't see how a list can make that any more explicit.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
He can void the ArbCom, in whole and in part, including the status of its members and its rulings. I don't see how a list can make that any more explicit.
Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
Steve
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a pretty reasonable question.
Thanks,
William
On 3/20/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a pretty reasonable question.
Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
-Stevertigo
on 3/20/07 10:37 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
It is exactly this type of paranoiac reasoning an administration uses to justify its secrecy.
Marc Riddell
stevertigo wrote:
Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a pretty reasonable question.
Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't talk about anything that's interesting to trolls, even if it's also interesting to non-trolls? That seems like it would restrict our discussions quite a bit.
William
On 3/20/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
Are you seriously suggesting we shouldn't talk about anything that's interesting to trolls, even if it's also interesting to non-trolls? That seems like it would restrict our discussions quite a bit.
Yes, but unsolicited discussion of private governance matters is one of the identifying marks of a troll.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but unsolicited discussion of private governance matters is one of the identifying marks of a troll.
What does leadership of an open-source effort to build a free and open encyclopaedia have to do with "private governance"? It's not like I'm asking questions relating to Jimbo's other business interests. And I'm not even trying to put anyone on the spot here - if certain questions are sensitive, then that's fine. But I don't see how a question like "can Jimbo overrule consensus" could be construed as a sensitive one best dealt with privately.
The overall picture I'm getting is this: 1) Jimbo is a board member on the Wikimedia foundation and one of its official spokespersons. 2) Jimbo retains one or more extraordinary powers on the English Wikipedia to do with arbitration. (if ArbCom is not confined to en, my apologies) 3) Jimbo retains an unofficial role as community leader and spokesman on the English Wikipedia. His pronouncements and directions are followed, if at all, because of trust, respect, his previous role as GodKing, and perhaps due to community misunderstanding of his role.
What else am I missing?
I would note that role 3) definitely seems to be declining. He intervenes much less frequently than he previously did, and is much less present on the mailing lists and talk pages than previously.
Steve
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The overall picture I'm getting is this:
- Jimbo is a board member on the Wikimedia foundation and one of its
official spokespersons. 2) Jimbo retains one or more extraordinary powers on the English Wikipedia to do with arbitration. (if ArbCom is not confined to en, my apologies) 3) Jimbo retains an unofficial role as community leader and spokesman on the English Wikipedia. His pronouncements and directions are followed, if at all, because of trust, respect, his previous role as GodKing, and perhaps due to community misunderstanding of his role.
What else am I missing?
There's only one other thing that I can think of. See WP:OFFICE. He is one of two people on the English Wikipedia empowered to perform unrevertable office actions.
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
What does leadership of an open-source effort to build a free and open encyclopaedia have to do with "private governance"? It's not like I'm asking questions relating to Jimbo's other business interests. And I'm not even trying to put anyone on the spot here - if certain questions are sensitive, then that's fine. But I don't see how a question like "can Jimbo overrule consensus" could be construed as a sensitive one best dealt with privately.
Well I certainly didn't mean to imply that you were a troll. But the fact is that until Jimbo decides otherwise, he is the reigning monarch.
- Jimbo retains one or more extraordinary powers on the English
Wikipedia to do with arbitration. (if ArbCom is not confined to en, my apologies)
ArbCom on en is confined to en simply because of language constraints. Likewise is Jimbo's governance. If he spoke Tagalog, he no doubt would take an active interest in how that language branch handled particular matters - from arbitration to sourcing.
- Jimbo retains an unofficial role as community leader and spokesman
on the English Wikipedia. His pronouncements and directions are followed, if at all, because of trust, respect, his previous role as GodKing, and perhaps due to community misunderstanding of his role.
Is the role of a king an "unofficial role?" Of course not. Just because there is no limitation to his "exceptional" powers doesn't mean that they are not well defined.
I would note that role 3) definitely seems to be declining. He intervenes much less frequently than he previously did, and is much less present on the mailing lists and talk pages than previously.
That is your opinion. Others may have thought so as well, but as todays events demonstrate, whether use of his executive power may wax or wane is purely up to his discretion. How else would a monarchy be?
-Stevertigo
On Mar 20, 2007, at 9:36 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Just because there is no limitation to his "exceptional" powers doesn't mean that they are not well defined.
Why don't you let Jimbo respond? Without disrespect, I personally do not care of your opinion of Jimbo's role.
What me and others are asking is for Jimbo's own opinion of his role. Given that we care for this project and contribute endless hours of our time to it, we have a basic right of asking these questions, don't you think?
I do not know him personally, but from what I have observed from his interactions with the community, I am certain he will respond if we just give him some space to do so.
-- Jossi
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
Why would it be improper to ask how Wikipedia is run? It seems like a pretty reasonable question.
Because the topic of Wikipedia's governance and processes of control are typical fodder for trolls, who are far more interested in hurting the project than helping it.
That's like saying that democracy is too precious to be put under the control of the general population.
Ec
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
Again, I find this public discussion to be improper. You would have to ask him.
If these policies are so private they are not explicit. I think your response is just another way of saying that you do not know.
Ec
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
He can void the ArbCom, in whole and in part, including the status of its members and its rulings. I don't see how a list can make that any more explicit.
Does he have any other explicit extraordinary powers?
I can fly, but not in the presence of kryptonite. :)
It has generally been accepted that I can engage in emergency desysoppings and refer cases directly to the ArbCom.
I think the limits on my power are quite a bit unknown for a few reasons, mainly that I really don't exercise power all that much, ever, and so most questions of what I could do just simply don't come up. And passing a priori laws against me seems rather injudicious since our community institutions are all quite carefully limited for good reasons in an effort to create an atmosphere of calm loving respect.
I have no intention of doing anything unusual at all.
I have long suspected that Brits implicitly get the governance model here better than Americans do. I think we Americans tend to want an a priori constitution which defines everything, and we pretend that "convention" in the British sense doesn't play a role in our government (though it does).
In the current case of WP:ATT, I consider my action to be nothing more than the sort of "delaying" action that the House of Lords can take in some cases in the UK. I want us to really consider this major policy shift via a wide-ranging discussion, and an actual measurement of consensus, and an actual final point so that whatever is implemented, is implemented with certainty, and there can be no cries that a tiny cabal of editors lurking behind the scenes changed everything.
--Jimbo
On 3/21/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I have long suspected that Brits implicitly get the governance model here better than Americans do. I think we Americans tend to want an a priori constitution which defines everything, and we pretend that "convention" in the British sense doesn't play a role in our government (though it does).
Heh. I'm Australian - we're theoretically governed by a monarch from another country! So I'm certainly comfortable with a mostly symbolic figurehead who nevertheless wields a very big stick. But let's just be clear on how big the stick is, and how much we need to pheer it. I think this conversation has done much to clarify the answer to that question.
Steve
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though, just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the English Wikipedia at the moment.
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the English Wikipedia at the moment.
Exactly. And what obligation does a monarch have to explain themselves, or to document exactly what they can or cannot do. That would violate the very definition of a monarchy.
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the English Wikipedia at the moment.
Exactly. And what obligation does a monarch have to explain themselves, or to document exactly what they can or cannot do. That would violate the very definition of a monarchy.
Just to be clear again, I don't agree with this. I believe, philosophically, in the consent of the governed. I think our current system works well: we are able to experiment with policy without worrying about a proposal going haywire, because I stand here being my same old boring mostly reasonable self to serve as a bit of a safety valve.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
Its important to understand that Jimbo has a well defined discretionary powers over the ArbCom. He has never used them though, just as the Queen of England has never "disbanded Parliament".
And indeed, a constitutional monarchy is the best analogy for the English Wikipedia at the moment.
Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy.
Ec
On 3/21/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Charles I discovered the hard way that there are limits to monarchy.
Ec
I think we should credit John with the original discovery.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 6:48 PM, stevertigo wrote:
Hence these public discussions about a good person and outstanding leader have the appearance of being personal attacks.
I can only speak for myself, but I respect him highly and that respect has not changed a bit since his intervention at WP:ATT. I just want some clarifications, and I am certain he will oblige.
-- Jossi
stevertigo wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't see how a private discusson can resolve a public confusion, unless I was to report the results of that "private" discussion afterwards.
Privacy is an outward indication of respect. Jimbo of course deserves respect just like any other community member. Moreso even. Hence these public discussions about a good person and outstanding leader have the appearance of being personal attacks. Though thats probably not your intent, people in the core community cannot rule that out.
Idolatry is not a valid basis for argument.
This debate arose from a public act by Jimbo. That alone makes it a valid subject for public discussion. While I don't completely disregard the possibility that some people may have taken this as an opportunity for personal attacks, the discussion as a whole is focused on solving a real problem.
Ec
On 21/03/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
If he has delegated responsibility for them, that presumably means he retains the authority to over-rule ArbCom's decisions?
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/03/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
If he has delegated responsibility for them, that presumably means he retains the authority to over-rule ArbCom's decisions?
Right. I still retain the right to pardon people who are banned by the ArbCom. I have never done this, and am unlikely to do so. But I think it a valuable safety valve in case the ArbCom somehow begins to go radically against community consensus in some particular case. Unlikely.
On 21/03/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
James Farrar wrote:
On 21/03/07, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
At English Wikipedia level, he has an informal status as a leader among the community. Historically - as a leader in the community - he exercised various functions (arbitration, for example) until those functions were delegated down (to the ArbCom, for example).
If he has delegated responsibility for them, that presumably means he retains the authority to over-rule ArbCom's decisions?
Right. I still retain the right to pardon people who are banned by the ArbCom. I have never done this, and am unlikely to do so. But I think it a valuable safety valve in case the ArbCom somehow begins to go radically against community consensus in some particular case. Unlikely.
Thanks for the response.
It seems to me that the "constitutional monarchy" model isn't totally appropriate here, as in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch has considerable power in theory but none in practice, as the use of any power to over-rule the government would immediately lead to the removal of the said powers from them and a move directly to a republic.
I like the HoL analogy.
On 21/03/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the "constitutional monarchy" model isn't totally appropriate here, as in a constitutional monarchy, the monarch has considerable power in theory but none in practice, as the use of any power to over-rule the government would immediately lead to the removal of the said powers from them and a move directly to a republic.
Yeah. In extreme cases, e.g. [[Charles I of England]], the people will express their displeasure by cutting his head off. Which probably counts as natural causes ;-)
Australians will know the example of the [[Australian constitutional crisis of 1975]], in which it was made clear that certain theoretical powers could be used *precisely once*.
In the present case, it's clear the community will tell Jimbo to get knotted if they seriously disagree.
I consider it useful to have Jimbo there. He's pretty level-headed and most certainly has the encyclopedia's interests at heart. Mostly his power is that (a) he speaks and people listen (whatever they think of the result) (b) he's right enough that he's worth listening to (c) a considerable reserve of personal loyalty from community members aware of (b).
- d.