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