-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than with the story Jimmy in effect created for them.
I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in having you expand on this.
Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. It isn't clear to me that sacrificing our values and the story "They're guilty because they just deleted a bunch of images we called them out for" is better than not sacrificing our values and the story "We still think they're hosting child porn" but which could be countered. Still, the main issue for me is what this means outside the current firestorm.
After all, isn't insulation from exactly this sort of inappropriate outside influence exactly what Sue was touting as a *major* strength of Wikimedia projects just last December at the Dalton Camp lecture? And here we see that Jimbo is vulnerable to this kind of influence, and has the ability to alter content radically.
If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord. Indeed, he can apparently even make changes that don't have traction among the community. At least if Fox got to some other editor or admin they'd have to limit what changes they made, lest they be too far outside the community's comfort zone - but Jimbo can get away with just about anything. Perhaps we're not so insulated as Sue thought. I regard this as a problem, do you not?
- -Mike