I would like to know the reason for the belated rejection of WP:ATT by Jimbo. Mainly I would like to understand why did he not engage during the last five months during which the proposal was debated, or made any comments in this mailing list when it was raised here.
The proposal was first proposed on October 2006 and was upgraded to policy on February 17.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#This_merger_is_a_really_bad_idea
TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/2exosx
-- Jossi
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
I would like to know the reason for the belated rejection of WP:ATT by Jimbo. Mainly I would like to understand why did he not engage during the last five months during which the proposal was debated, or made any comments in this mailing list when it was raised here.
I believe that Jimbo may have misunderstood and thinks substantive changes were made, rather than just a merge -- perhaps because of the situation today at the Langan article and the discussion about primary sources on this list, which seems to have given the false impression that changes were made to the NOR policy.
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
Sarah
On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
-- Jossi
<snip> I take virtually no position on the details of WP:ATT. I think that it probably was a more or less accurate merger of the three separate policies. But merging three separate policies into one, even when that change is not intended to make any actual policy change, is not trivial and in this particular a monumentally bad idea. All over the site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the arguments people are making. We must not merge these separate concepts, or we have no means of distinguishing them. Not everything is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) </snip>
I still suspect that this was based on a misunderstanding of WP:ATT, based on the Langans article. I'm sure he'll change his view once he realizes that they are unrelated.
Jay.
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
-- Jossi
<snip> I take virtually no position on the details of WP:ATT. I think that it probably was a more or less accurate merger of the three separate policies. But merging three separate policies into one, even when that change is not intended to make any actual policy change, is not trivial and in this particular a monumentally bad idea. All over the site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the arguments people are making. We must not merge these separate concepts, or we have no means of distinguishing them. Not everything is the same thing.--Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) </snip>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
Exactly, and I hope when he realizes that he'll reconsider what he did today. I do think it was based on a misunderstanding prompted by the discussion on the list about the Langan article.
Sarah
On 3/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
Exactly, and I hope when he realizes that he'll reconsider what he did today. I do think it was based on a misunderstanding prompted by the discussion on the list about the Langan article.
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly, simply because the project would likely fall to pieces without him.
Who after is all is in a better position to formulate and implement policy changes? It is his job alone to tell the community what policy stands on Wikipedia, and how best to implement such. He after all is not just Wikipedia's founder, but its Editor in Chief, Chairman of the Board, and spokesperson.
-Stevertigo
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website.
No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard is.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/21/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website.
No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard is.
And Jimbo has reserved a role as boss, including the power to make decrees like "this is unacceptable." While the overall Wikimedia duties have shifted away from Jimbo, he is still the public face of Wikipedia.
Stevertigo's comments were not spreading of misinformation - they were a poorly phrased and, on a single detail that has not been trumpeted that loudly (namely the shift of chairman), inaccurate. Please do assume good faith.
-Phil
On 3/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
And Jimbo has reserved a role as boss, including the power to make decrees like "this is unacceptable."
There is no legal basis to any role Jimmy has in the English Wikipedia (and which the community, not the Board, permits him to exercise). Wikipedia is not "Jimmy's website" by any measure, be it ownership, representation, or legal control. That is misinformation.
While the overall Wikimedia duties have shifted away from Jimbo, he is still the public face of Wikipedia.
This may be true in the United States; it is certainly not true in the European Union, for example, where Florence and chapter representatives are increasingly the first point of contact.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On 3/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
And Jimbo has reserved a role as boss, including the power to make decrees like "this is unacceptable."
There is no legal basis to any role Jimmy has in the English Wikipedia (and which the community, not the Board, permits him to exercise). Wikipedia is not "Jimmy's website" by any measure, be it ownership, representation, or legal control. That is misinformation.
Yes, because this discussion was clearly taking place in the realm of the legal, so that was obviously the most sensible direction to take it in.
This may be true in the United States; it is certainly not true in the European Union, for example, where Florence and chapter representatives are increasingly the first point of contact.
Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere. Most of those 8 are about her screw-up in telling people that we were going to go tits up financially. Even if you do the search entirely in French news you get twice as many for Jimmy as Florence. German is 52/2. Were there any other languages you'd prefer to pick here?
This really is just worthless nitpicking on your point. In terms of policy on en, Jimbo does have a special role as, to use a phrase we haven't in a while, God King. That's just a statement of fact. You can quibble with the wording all you want, but that remains all anybody has said.
-Phil
On 3/21/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, because this discussion was clearly taking place in the realm of the legal, so that was obviously the most sensible direction to take it in.
Stevertigo's comments, including the claim that Wikipedia is "Jimmy's website", were wildly inaccurate. I corrected them.
Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere. Most of those 8 are about her screw-up in telling people that we were going to go tits up financially.
What a nasty comment. Florence was misrepresented; if you watch the video, it is quite clear that she said no such thing. In any case, comparing the news, you will have to filter Wikia-related items and community initiatives on the English Wikipedia. Florence Devouard represents the Wikimedia Foundation as Chair of its Board of Trustees.
On 3/20/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere.
Google searches are not reliable sources - for anything.
This really is just worthless nitpicking on your point. In terms of policy on en, Jimbo does have a special role as, to use a phrase we haven't in a while, God King.
I would not regard Eriks comments in any way as "worthless nitpicking". The "God King" term is way exaggerated, and besides the point, which is simply that Jimbo should simply be trusted.
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:37 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
There is no legal basis to any role Jimmy has in the English Wikipedia (and which the community, not the Board, permits him to exercise). Wikipedia is not "Jimmy's website" by any measure, be it ownership, representation, or legal control. That is misinformation.
Im sorry if my comments were misunderstood. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in not just this thread but in this policy discussion in general.
Regards,
-Stevertigo
On Mar 20, 2007, at 8:54 PM, stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Try a Google News search on their names. It's a fun game - you get about 750 hits for Jimmy and about 8 for Anthere.
Google searches are not reliable sources - for anything.
I was unaware that the mailing list had a reliable sourcing policy.
Suffice it to say that, short of a Lexis-Nexis search (which is going to be inferior for content related to electronic resources anyway), Google News searches are in fact pretty good.
I would not regard Eriks comments in any way as "worthless nitpicking". The "God King" term is way exaggerated, and besides the point, which is simply that Jimbo should simply be trusted.
The term has always been used as a rather serious joke.
-Phil
On 3/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard is.
Well I may be wrong about a couple minor points - it's not as if anyone can keep up on all the various discussions and events. Jimbo is the "BDFL" of Wikipedia and as such WP is indeed "his" (in a certain sense). And he was "Chair of the Board" until recently was he not? (When was Anthere promoted? - Congratulations!) Hence your characterization of "misinformation" appears to be highly exaggerated. Certainly it was not my intent to misinform people.
-Stevertigo
On 3/20/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/20/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
No, it is not "Jimbo's website"; please do not continue to spread this misinformation. And Jimmy is not Chair of the Board, Florence Devouard is.
Well I may be wrong about a couple minor points - it's not as if anyone can keep up on all the various discussions and events. Jimbo is the "BDFL" of Wikipedia and as such WP is indeed "his" (in a certain sense). And he was "Chair of the Board" until recently was he not? (When was Anthere promoted? - Congratulations!) Hence your characterization of "misinformation" appears to be highly exaggerated. Certainly it was not my intent to misinform people.
-Stevertigo
Well... let's put it this way. As far as I can tell, Anthere's becoming Board chair was much more widely promoted within the community than, say, the move on the English Wikipedia to merge a few fundamental content inclusion policies into one (WP:ATT). What one sees happening on the site often depends on what one pays attention to.
And not to continue overstating the obvious, but let's not confuse the issues of who is influential in making English Wikipedia policy and who is influential in the running of Wikipedia's parent organization. Jimbo, as ever, has special status in both arenas, in large part since he played a big role in getting them both up and running in the first place.
-- phoebe
on 3/20/07 8:18 PM, stevertigo at stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly
WOW! As history will attest - Kool Aide really can be toxic!
, simply because
the project would likely fall to pieces without him.
WOW!! That says a hell of a lot about the people who actually write it, edit it, and maintain it every day 24/7!
Who after is all is in a better position to formulate and implement policy changes? It is his job alone to tell the community what policy stands on Wikipedia, and how best to implement such. He after all is not just Wikipedia's founder, but its Editor in Chief, Chairman of the Board, and spokesperson.
WOW!!!
Astounded,
Marc Riddell
stevertigo wrote:
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue.
Wow, I disagree greatly. I'm a big fan of the benevolent dictatorship system we work under, but my feeling is more like [[Carl_Schurz]]:
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."
I think it's his website mostly in the sense that the Linux kernel is Linus's. It's really everybody's kernel, but everybody follows Linus's lead because he leads pretty well.
William
Just to be clear, Stevertigo is being facetious here, and I disagree strongly with what he is saying.
stevertigo wrote:
On 3/20/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
Exactly, and I hope when he realizes that he'll reconsider what he did today. I do think it was based on a misunderstanding prompted by the discussion on the list about the Langan article.
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly, simply because the project would likely fall to pieces without him.
Who after is all is in a better position to formulate and implement policy changes? It is his job alone to tell the community what policy stands on Wikipedia, and how best to implement such. He after all is not just Wikipedia's founder, but its Editor in Chief, Chairman of the Board, and spokesperson.
-Stevertigo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 3/20/07, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Just to be clear, Stevertigo is being facetious here, and I disagree strongly with what he is saying.
Well I may have been completely wrong about a couple points, but I don't know how that could be called "being facetious." The gist of my comments was essentially correct was it not?
I mean, you've guided the project thus far, on matters great and small, and you will continue to, until such time as your role would be bequeathed to an heir. That's the way "the Brits" do it, isn't it?
-Stevertigo
On 3/20/07, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
Its important to remember that Wikipedia is Jimbo's website. It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong on any particular issue. What matters is that we follow his leadership and do so promptly, simply because the project would likely fall to pieces without him.
Who pays for the servers? And writes all of the new content? And maintains the site's functionality?
On 3/20/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I think it's his website mostly in the sense that the Linux kernel is Linus's. It's really everybody's kernel, but everybody follows Linus's lead because he leads pretty well.
Exactly.
Yeah, it's a dictatorship, but just because we allow it to be one. It's also a democracy, an anarchy, a meritocracy, a technocracy, etc. Ultimately, it's our project.
If Jimbo or the board decide to decree new policies that a large number of us disagree with, we'll just take our contributions and donations elsewhere, and leave en.wikipedia to the wolves.
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:48 AM, Slim Virgin wrote:
The merge was popular, smooth, there were no changes to policy, and ATT has quickly become a widely used page, so I'm assuming this was a misunderstanding that will be sorted out soon enough.
I am not so sure, SlimVirgin.
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea". What needs to be clarified is that the distintions between V, RS and OR not only have been maintained in WP:ATT, but their formulation synchronized with one another as well.
-- Jossi
<snip> ...All over the site are hundreds or thousands of links to these policy pages, and the meaning of referring someone to WP:V versus WP:RS versus WP:NOR are overwhelmingly important to a coherent understanding of the arguments people are making. ...Jimbo Wales 15:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC) </snip>
Jimbo's reservations are covered, as I understand it, in the merged policy. This should actually work to improve the encyclopedia by catching weak and faulty information and subjecting it a more rigorous test.
jf_wikipedia wrote:
This is what he writes. He calls ATT a "monumentally bad idea".
No, I called the merge a monumentally bad idea. To be more specific, I found the redirects and complete elimination of WP:V and WP:NOR to be bad ideas. Those are conceptually distinct and need pages which explain them.
On 3/20/07, jf_wikipedia jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
I would like to know the reason for the belated rejection of WP:ATT by Jimbo. Mainly I would like to understand why did he not engage during the last five months during which the proposal was debated, or made any comments in this mailing list when it was raised here.
The proposal was first proposed on October 2006 and was upgraded to policy on February 17.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Attribution#This_merger_is_a_really_bad_idea
TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/2exosx
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
He did not reject it. He still says it's policy. He says it does not supercede the other ones. It's an independent one.