[WikiEN-l] New York Times article

[Jimmy Wales]

The Cunctator wrote:
> Well, BoingBoing just published Jimmy's propagandistic stylings on
> semi-protection (it's not a restriction, it's a freedom!) with the lovely
> heading  "NYT falsely reports that Wikipedia has  added restrictions".

Gee, that is hardly what I have said.  We used to fully protect in cases
that we now semi-protect.  That's a net gain for openness.

> It's
> difficult to tell and Wales isn't particularly interested in doing honest
> critical analyses of the effects of his policies.

Wow, that's a hell of a thing to say after we have known each other for
years, and after I have spent a week gathering statistics and doing
studies of how semi-protection is used.

> As an admin, I've also turned
> on/off semi-protection in various cases. I just wish people (aka Jimmy)
> would be will to admit that there are shades of gray instead of shouting
> that it's black and white.

Excuse me?  I have spent the last several days writing dozens of
journalists and bloggers explaining precisely this: that there are
shades of gray and that the matter is much more complex than "Wikipedia
is locking down" or "Wikipedia is total fucking chaos".

The truth is: Wikipedia is incredibly open, and it is my intention that
we look at the places where we have been unable to be open in the past,
and find clever ways to slice those so that we are more open.  Like, for
example, semi-protection instead of full protection.

I have a general rule in discussion: assume good faith. Before you
accuse me of not being "particularly interested" in honest critical
analysis, I think you better stop for a moment and think a bit about
history.

--Jimbo