I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers will be controversial.

Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases.

To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified.

Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue.

I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that Jimmy's actions represent a collapse in the face of a threat by Fox News (and that this threat was somehow small or insignificant). The second is the idea that the proper focus of the current discussion ought to be focused on Jimmy (and anger against Jimmy's taking action, or against particular aspects of the actions he took) to the effective exclusion of discussion of whether Wikimedia Commons policy should be revisited, refined, or better implemented. First, my belief as a former journalist is that Fox News is not a responsible news organization. This means that they get too many stories wrong in the first place (as when they uncritically echo Larry Sanger's uninformed and self-interested assertions), and it also means that when their mistakes are brought to their attention, they may redouble their aggressive attacks in the hope of somehow vindicating their original story. This I believe is what Fox News (or at least its reporter and her editors) were trying to do. If the media culture in the United States were such that Fox News had no influence outside itself, we could probably just ignore it. But the reality is that the virulent culture of Fox News does manage to infect other media coverage in ways that are destructive to good people and to good projects. 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. Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a whole, created breathing space for discussion of an issue on Commons that even many of Jimmy's critics believe is a real issue. The question then becomes whether we're doing to discuss the issues of Commons policy or discuss whether Jimmy's actions themselves signify a problem that needs to be fixed. You may say we can discuss both, and technically you'd be right, but the reality of human discourse is that if you spend your time venting at Jimmy, you won't be discussing Commons policy, and you'll be diverting attention from Commons policy. My personal opinion is that this would be the waste of an opportunity. I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers will be controversial. (If they were uncontroversial, nobody would need them, since consensus processes would fix all problems quickly and effectively.) But rather than focus on whether your disagreement with the particulars of what Jimmy did means that Jimmy's powers should be removed, you should choose instead, I believe, to use this abrupt intervention as an opportunity to discuss whether Commons policy and its implementation can be improved in a way that brings it more into line with the Wikimedia projects' mission. Once this discussion happens, it would not surprise me if the result turned out to be that some of the material deleted by Jimmy will be restored by the community -- probably with Jimmy's approval in many cases. To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified. (Like many of you, I would probably disagree with some of his particular decisions, but I recognize that I'd be critical of anyone's particular decisions.) It is not the case, after all, that Jimmy routinely intervenes in projects these days -- it is mostly the case that he forbears from intervening, which is as it should be, and which I think speaks well of his restraint. It should be kept in mind, I think, that Jimmy's intervention was aimed at protecting our projects from external threat and coercion, precisely to give breathing space to the kind of dialog and consensus processes that we all value and believe to be core principles of Wikimedia projects. I hope that rather than venting and raging about what was done in the face of an imminent and vicious threat gives way to some forward-looking discussion of how things can be made better. This discussion is best focused on policy, and not on Jimmy, in my view, since Jimmy's actions represent efforts to protect the Wikimedia projects and movement. That's where our efforts should be focused too. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l