Jimmy Wales wrote:

Well, Sheldon, this assumes that the Foundation has authority *over* the community, which the Foundation more or less denies. So whatever corporate powers I have or don't have are likely quite different from whatever powers our community traditions give me.

Several board members have made it quite clear that they don't intend to interfere with that one way or the other.

Again, turning to the bylaws: "The majority of the Board shall be elected or appointed from within the community," but "'Community' as used in the Bylaws, shall be defined by the Board, consistent with the mission statement."

This seems to say that the ultimate power in Wikipedia resides with the community, as you stated. Somewhat paradoxically, however, the Board has the power to define the community. In theory this could lead to a situation where the board defined the community in such a way as to manipulate the outcome of elections to produce unrepresentative outcomes. In practice it most likely means that ultimate power now resides with a broad-based community of Wikipedians who elect the board to represent them.

The fact that the current board assents to the current definition of Jimbo's powers does not mean that future boards will continue to do so. It's possible (again in theory, and I see no sign of it happening) that the community could elect board members who choose to do otherwise.

For the record, I'm not in any way advocating that they do so. The point here is simply to define from whence your powers derive.

As for the question of whether the Foundation has authority over the community, of course the Foundation doesn't have any ability to tell any of us what to do. However, it *does* control the physical assets of Wikipedia, including the servers. If it chose to do so, it could shut the site down and fire the staff, and the community would have to try to reconstitute itself elsewhere.

Again, I'm not advocating that this happen, nor do I think that it is even remotely likely.

The main point here (on which I think you and I agree) is that Stevertigo's description of you as a "monarch" with "unlimited powers" is no longer accurate. Whether your powers derive from the board or from "community traditions," they now derive from some source other than actual ownership of Wikipedia. Moreover, if your powers derive from community traditions, it is paradoxical (to put it politely) for Stevertigo to suggest that the community should refrain from publicly discussing how your powers are defined. Is he just being a troll, or what?

-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?id=1118 --------------------------------