[Textbook-l] Power to dictate policy (Was: Game Guides)
Robert Scott Horning
robert_horning at netzero.net
Wed Jun 14 23:43:53 UTC 2006
Kernigh wrote:
>Cormac Lawler wrote:
>
>
>>As far as I see it: the community has control over the content, and
>>the board bears the legal liability for the content. Jimbo's unique
>>part in this is that he retains the power to dictate policy where he
>>deems necessary, and when he thinks a project has veered off course
>>significantly from its goals or the goals of the foundation. I'm not
>>sure of what other times he has exercised this power, apart from the
>>recent debate about the content of Wikibooks - maybe someone else,
>>perhaps Jimbo himself, can clarify this.
>>
>>
>
>Excuse me, can you clarify?
>
>How does [[User:Jimbo Wales]] "retain the power to dictate policy"?
>Retention requires that you already have the power. When did [[User:Jimbo
>Wales]] obtain the power to dictate policy "where he deems necessary"?
>
>I understand that someone in the Wikimedia Foundation can dictate policy in
>exceptional cases where that is required, but I do not understand how the
>Wikimedia Foundation is organised.
>
>-- [[User:Kernigh]]
> http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Kernigh
>
>
>
The power that Jimbo possessed was the power of the switch on the
server. If the community was simply getting out of hand, he could have
simply pulled the plug and stopped whatever was happening right then and
there. It was also the "golden rule", where he who has the gold makes
the rules. I know this sounds harsh, but is pretty much the real power
of Jimbo in the beginning. That and the fact that he was co-founder of
Wikipedia and garnered a bunch of support, where regardless of what he
thought there would also be huge numbers of supporters to agree with
whatever actions he has made.
One of the problems with the creation of the Wikimedia Foundation is
that Jimbo's power has been tempered quite a bit. This is good in the
sense that he is no longer the absolute god over Wikimedia projects, and
instead has to answer to not only the WMF board, but also to the state
of Florida and the IRS in terms of proper conduct for a non-profit
corporation. Still, by being chairman of the board, and his co-founder
status means that his opinion on many matters carries a substantial
amount of weight and a good number of people still listen to him. And
he only has to convince two other board members to agree with him to
make it fully legal as an action of the WMF. In theory, he doesn't even
need the agreement of the elected members of the WMF board.
The problem here is that a number of users on Wikibooks now seem to feel
that a "Jimbo says..." edict is more than sufficient justification to
perform certain actions, even though it is not necessarily something the
rest of the Wikibooks community has agreed to, or even digested to see
if it is something worth while. Any users that say "Whoa! Wait one
minute! I think this is happening too fast and I don't necessarily
agree!" are dismissed and belittled, and ignored. The only thing to do
at that point is to get into a wheel war of policy decisions. That is
not a good thing, and by itself is likely to get the WMF board to get
involved formally. Or that people have to give up and leave. This is
not good for Wikibooks either.
For some of the specific policy issues that are facing Wikibooks, some
of them are legitimate issues that have needed to be addressed. Others
are from a bunch of people yelling at Jimbo to come in and resolve the
issue because they are making it an issue on his talk page or direct
e-mails to Jimbo rather than trying to gain a concensus on the Staff
Lounge or other Wikibooks forums. Of these individuals, I have especial
contempt as a compromise is always a more reasonable solution, as should
engagement with the community. Only if there is a genuine deadlock
should outside intervention even be considered, and I think legitimate
arbitrators could still be found to help out besides appealing directly
to the top of the WMF.
I don't mind Jimbo coming in and weighing in his opinion on these issues
either, as if he were another normal Wikibooks user. Indeed I welcome
that, and want to encourage his input. The problem is when he starts
changing policy pages without even a discussion, and acting as if it was
always written that way doesn't sit well with me. And I chewed out
Jimbo personnally when he tried to delete a Wikibook when all he did was
delete the front page, and left the rest of the sub-pages in place.
That just leaves garbage floating around Wikibooks that admins have to
deal with later. I can understand if he feels a book is far too
offensive, but I have little doubt as well that if Jimbo simply added a
VfD to a Wikibook, it would likely disappear anyway. Every Wikibook
that has gone to a VfD so far with disapproval by Jimbo has been
deleted. I can't say the same thing about any other admin on Wikibooks.
--
Robert Scott Horning
More information about the Textbook-l
mailing list