[WikiEN-l] An open letter to Jimmy Wales

[Seth Finkelstein]

> Oskar Sigvardsson
> If you want free speech, use your blog. You can say whatever you want there.

	In watching this incident unfold, I've been impressed
regarding the way that the take-it-to-where-Jimbo-*is* strategy
appears to be *right*, as a matter of effectiveness. Despite the limited
perceptions of those who are quick to deem critics as trolls, I'm
fascinated by the group dynamics and sociology of Wikipedia.

	Now, phrases like "free speech" can lead to knee-jerking as people
rush to recite cliches. Yada, yada, First-Amendment-is-government,
private-legal-rights, blah, blah. Like the old joke, we should just
number those arguments, so people could simply say "#17" or "#23", and
get them out of the way. Been there, done that, got the flame-wars.

	We're really talking about qualities like ethics and fairness
in pursuit of justice (very vague words, I know). What's so interesting
in specific here, is that only now has Larry Sanger's evidence reached
some of the relatively tiny number of core editors who are highly
influential in shaping the relevant Wikipedia articles. And apparently
only because it was put in the places those editors read, over many
formalistic and legalistic objections (WP:THISPOLICYMEANSWHATISAYITDOES).

	That is, on his website, the "right" people *DID* *NOT* *READ* *IT*.
You could link to it. You could have a _Guardian_ columnist repeatedly
refer to it in articles about Wikipedia 1/2 :-). You could bring it up
over and over in various comments. *DIDN'T* *MATTER*. Only a very
particular setting was effective in this case.

	It should be needless to say, but this is significant for
building an encyclopedia. More broadly, it's a lesson in, let's say,
"information flow", that has some important implications for trying to
ensure accuracy.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer
Web site - http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/