[WikiEN-l] Don't remove a WP:OFFICE tag put there by Danny

[Michael Snow]

The Cunctator wrote:

>On 3/12/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Delirium wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I didn't say anything quite that extreme, and contrary to Jimbo's
>>>assumption, I'm not particularly angry about it either.  I'm just
>>>worried that the current policy of letting some people go "over the
>>>head" of editors by taking things to the Wikimedia Foundation, which
>>>then deals with them in a top-down manner, will introduce systemic bias
>>>into the encyclopedia.
>>>      
>>>
>>Current policy does not let anyone go "over the head" of editors and the
>>Wikimedia Foundation does not deal with them in a "top-down manner".
>>    
>>
>>> This leads to some articles having different policies
>>>than other articles,
>>>      
>>>
>>This is false.
>>    
>>
>Now I'm confused. Can you tell me which of the following is inaccurate
>/ not true?
>
>1. Calling the Foundation to complain about Wikipedia is not an
>officially recognized way to change content on Wikipedia.
>  
>
This is the inaccurate statement. Contacting the Wikimedia Foundation 
with a complaint has been officially recognized as a way to address 
inappropriate content for as long as the organization has existed. 
That's why we have a designated agent, for example, as required by law.

>2. Calls to the Foundation complaining about Wikipedia content have led to
>a) edits to Wikipedia by Foundation staff
>b) Blanking of Wikipedia articles by Foundation staff
>c) Protection of Wikipedia articles by Foundation staff
>d) Various combinations of the above
>  
>
Also, deletion of Wikipedia articles as well as images and other files. 
I don't see a problem with this. Do you expect the Foundation to not do 
anything about legitimate complaints? It has to take action regarding 
such complaints, otherwise it loses any legal protection it has against 
being liable for the content on Wikipedia.

>3. Actions listed above by Foundation staff are sometimes marked by
>WP:OFFICE and any interference with such actions by any editor can
>lead to revokation of editing/sysop rights.
>  
>
Again, why is there a problem? Violations of plenty of other policies 
can lead to revocation of editing or administrative *privileges*.

>If that is above, it seems like a reasonable interpretation of the
>above is that people can go over the head of editors by taking things
>to the Wikimedia Foundation, which then deals with them in a top-down
>manner, with some articles having different "de facto" policies than
>other articles.
>
There seem to be a lot of terms being used lately for rhetorical effect 
without much attention paid to what they really mean. To "go over the 
head" of someone implies that you bypass normal channels. In many cases, 
including for example Jack Thompson, they aren't bypassing the editors, 
they actually tried dealing with the editors and that didn't solve the 
problem. At the same time, we have a policy of "No legal threats" on 
Wikipedia, which in fact specifically directs you to the Wikimedia 
Foundation if you want to raise such issues. So when people contact the 
Foundation, they are following the same policies as everyone else, it's 
just that this particular policy doesn't often come into play.

Also, "top-down" is a management style - though you would never know 
that from Wikipedia, where it redirects to an article about software 
design, which I trust is not what you were referring to. In management 
terms, a top-down system is one where the executives make all the key 
decisions themselves, plan how the work will be done, and give 
assignments to their subordinates, who have little discretion or input 
in the work they do. If anyone can tell me when they were given an 
assignment on Wikipedia in which they lacked input or discretion, I'd be 
happy to hear about it.

--Michael Snow