On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: I don't disagree, but I meant what I said about *single* most important issue! And I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on what capacity you think Jimmy was acting in; this is not the first time in the last decade that he's used bold action to get us to rethink content policies. -- phoebe

On 8 May 2010 17:46, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: I've been working on the RationalWiki article on the decline and all-but-collapse of Citizendium: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium - CZ now has less contributors or actitvity than *Conservapedia*. And a lot of that was due to hasty interventions from the founder. (Leading to this final last-ditch attempt to drum up interest by attacking Wikipedia.) I doubt Wikimedia is going to collapse soon, it's a bit big. But this sort of thing drives away the community disproportionately. - d.

I'll respond to a few related comments and questions at once: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would oppose any Board action that did so. Phoebe writes: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote; The Board does not support this - although individuals may - it is not the role of the Board or the Foundation to get involved with project policy or content discussions. Jimmy represents himself when he contributes to the projects. I don't find a 'wild west' approach helpful. However some community members have in the past; and Jimmy's founder role stems from the deference of the community, not a blessing from the Board. --- Millosh asked about the Board perspective on the Jimmy's last actions on Commons, so here is mine: Jimmy started a discussion on Commons, about a subject he cares deeply about. It began well. As Adam and others have said, by Friday morning there was an active community discussion led by Commons administrators, and steady progress on fleshing out a sexual content policy. That was largely attributable to Jimmy's help facilitating a community discussion around a concrete proposal. I engaged in the discussion myself, but my comments there -- as those of any Trustee -- represent only my input as a member of the community. Since Friday afternoon, this has been derailed. Jimmy acted boldly and unilaterally, changed the developing draft significantly and then acted on it, reverted opposition without comment, and threatened desysopping. Work on the proposal died. Boldness is useful - I am a fan of WP:BRD - but I am concerned about the last point. From Jimmy's talk page today: "I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship... removing adminship in case of wheel warring on this issue" -- this Sword of Damocles is problematic. It is difficult to reach meaningful consensus in an atmosphere of fear. I hope that noone in the Commons community feels threatened or unable to speak their mind (or to exercise their administrative abilities in carrying out their work). As to a way forward -- it is (as ever) up to the Commons community to work out what its policies are to be, with Jimmy if they are willing. I encourage those who feel strongly about these issues to engage directly in discussions there. SJ

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: < They are still speaking as individuals - and were mainly commenting on whether they thought it was appropriate for Jimmy to spur a policy discussion as a community member. Please do not confuse personal opinions - including my own - for a stance of the Board. Our mandate as a Board explicitly precludes meddling in Project policy, community disputes, and the like. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_member And the Board has always taken care in its official statements not to suggest it is directing project policy or content, except where -- as with the 2007 licensing policy -- this is the explicit intent, and the policy change crafted after extensive discussion with the Projects. The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project, unless you consider high-level goal-setting and prioritization ( like http://j.mp/wmfblp ) editorial. SJ

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, phoebe ayers &lt;phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: There are some political reasons of why I am here. And they are about our values: all human knowledge... not censored... consensus culture... building encyclopedia etc., not surrealistic comedy... (Saying so, I am not talking in absolute terms: we are not able to have all human knowledge, but the most important of; if people are deciding what should be censored for themselves, I am fine; sometimes we need [well planned] bold actions; sometimes it is nice to watch a surrealistic comedy.) Those values are *before* finances. We are here because of them, not because of money or strategy. Money and strategy are here because of our values. And I don't feel that I am the only one who has the opinion similar to the opinion described inside of my ask.

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Noein &lt;pronoein(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I can certainly say you've been around /only/ a year and half, as you seem to believe all this is about wikipedia. It's about commons and wikimedia in general. (Here, and I've /only/ been around 5 years, but that's irrelevant)