Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100
> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
> Message-ID:
> <CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=119bQ(a)mail.gmail.com
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> >
> > Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
> >
>
> I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
> be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
> that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
> founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated
> with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse.
>
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who
expressed an opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.
Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy
was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on
Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to
differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was
planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens
when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community
with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA
blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and
the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different.
WSC
