On 25/04/05, Richard Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
He has told me
how shocked he is that I'd say something like that, how
wrong I am, how I shouldn't say things when I don't know what I'm
talking about, and has even said that I have accused him publicly of
being a pornographer.
Yet, while telling me how wrong I am and that I don't know what I'm
talking about, and how he's shocked that I would say such things, he
quietly sits not divulging exactly how it's wrong and what the right
version is, and until such time as he does so I see no reason to not
tell people the same old story over and over - without an explanation,
why should I believe that what he says is real? As I said before there
is an undeniable connection that Jimbo seems to want to deny: Bomis
sells porn (although it gets "less than 10%" of its revenue from it),
and Bomis was involved in the beginning of Wikipedia. That doesn't
mean Wikipedia is a pornographic encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia of
porn, or an encyclopedia founded by pornographers and supported mostly
by money from porn sales - all it means is just that: the company that
was the primary involved party in the beginning of Wikipedia, and in
which Jimmy Wales still plays a large part, does have a "premium"
website where it sells access to pornographic images. That doesn't
mean anything about the objectivity of Wikipedia, on the contrary
Wikipedia (at least en:) seems to be turning into Wikipedia - The
Prudish Encyclopedia.
Mark,
Why do you presume (as you apparently do) that Jimmy owes you or
anyone else any explanation? You admit that the nature of Bomis'
business has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and goals. Why do
you find it necessary to tell *any* story to others? Is there any need
to go beyond what is contained in [[W:en:Bomis]]?
If he is going to continue to tell me I am wrong, don't know what I'm
talking about, that he's shocked that I would say such things, he had
better either tell me what the truth is or just learn to live with the
currentversion cemented in my mind which I tell all who ask about the
history of Wikipedia.
So, if he didn't tell me I was wrong or didn't know what I'm talking
about, or that he's shocked, or whatever, but just that "I don't
really remember it that way, but you can tell it as you'd like", I'd
not expect any sort of explanation from him.
Substitute "pornography" for "erotic
images" if you prefer...the
distinction often seems to be POV anyway. Why does more need to be
said?
Sure. But if I recall correctly the term Jimbo used to say that less
than 10% of Bomis' revenue is from that... portion of their business,
he said "pornography"... but I honestly don't remember.
What I'm asking is, why is this so important to
you? Up until now I
have been only an observer in this thread...and it seems like you're
just trying to stir up controversy. I don't *believe* that's what
you're doing, but I sure am puzzled as to what your motive actually
is.
My motive is that, Jimbo has told me to quit telling falsehoods, that
I am wrong, I don't know what I'm talking about, and even that he's
shocked that I would say such things, yet refuses to tell me what the
actual truth is. If this thread goes dormant, I'm not going to just
keep adding e-mails onto the end until he tells me, but as long as
there are still messages that I feel warrant a response, I will
probably reply to them.
If you'll recall correctly, all I said originally was some short
barely-a-sentence thing about "believe it or not". Then Jimbo made a
fuss - so remember, it's Jimbo who turned this into a ruckus, not me -
and refused to explain himself. If he is going to go around telling me
I'm wrong, I think I have a right to know how I'm wrong, otherwise he
will have to learn to live with the status quo.
Mark
--
SI HOC LEGERE SCIS NIMIVM ERVDITIONIS HABES
QVANTVM MATERIAE MATERIETVR MARMOTA MONAX SI MARMOTA MONAX MATERIAM
POSSIT MATERIARI
ESTNE VOLVMEN IN TOGA AN SOLVM TIBI LIBET ME VIDERE