[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

[Adam Cuerden]

Jimbo never revealed the reasons he was doing this - the FOX News
attacks - until after he did them, and it was a fait accompli.

He actively worked to mislead the community about the reasons and
goals of his actions.

After the community had made it very clear that they felt artworks
should be protected, in their editing of [[Commons:Sexual content]],
he ignored it and deleted artworks anyway, and wheel warred to keep
them deleted.

If you want people to focus on policy, you open a thread saying "In
the opinion of the board, we need to deal with this issue. Here's a
draft proposal, we need you to quickly deal with this, as the media
may be looking into things.

You don't A. not mention the reason you're doing it and, B. ignore
anything and everything you get as feedback from the community.

Jimbo, by going off half-cocked, wheel-warring, and misleading the
community, has struck at the core of Wikipedia's principles. When
Iranian TV threatens bad publicity, will we delete all depictions of
Muhammed? If the Virgin Killer controversy happens again, is the
board's new policy to immediately capitulate?

Wikipedia has survived bad publicity in the past. It's never hurt us
one bit. Jimbo's actions have hurt us. This should be all about Jimbo.