[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

[Aphaia]

Between Wikiversity blocking and Commons ones, there is another
example of Jimmy's rushes and communal nonsupport, I think.

That is, on a "global ban" of a certain editor.

While I personally don't care if that guy is banned or not, I care the
Jimmy's claim he has a right to declare global ban in his individual
right. Respectfully I disagree. And I saw other community members do
the same: one the account of that editor in question was locked but
soon unlocked. I suppose things would have gone in a different course
if the first step had been a proposal, not declare.

One other thing I'm concerned is that Jimmy hasn't known global user
right management system - global lock in this case. It may demonstrate
he is alienated from the day-by-day project housekeeping and don't
know  how the things are managed in this level. In general I suppose
it wouldn't be a bright idea to keep someone a mop without knowledge
how wikis work.

In this dispute, we already have seen a general agreement (hardcore
porns w/o any illustration purpose are to delete) and some
disagreements in details (how such deletions are performed, if certain
images should be kept or go away etc.). Let me summarize, we are happy
to accord in general policy but still need to discuss in details. I
sincerely wish if Jimmy had kept the line of policy discussion and
taken initiative, not tipped into each controversy of corner picking.

Once Jimmy said he on Wikipedia was similar to English Queen to some
extent: regnat et non gubernat. I find it words of wisdom. Specially
right now Jimmy is much busier and have less time to give a look to
each community disputes. In other words, declaring ban an individual
or deleting an individual image is not ruling, but governing. Jimmy, I
wholeheartedly recommend you to be back to your past wisdom and
discretion. Then you will find you are in the community, of those who
have ears to you, if you speak calmly and thoughtfully.

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote:
>> On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard<Anthere9 at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not defending such a criterion, and I do not believe that such a
>>>> criterion informed Jimmy's actions. Jimmy can speak better than I can on
>>>> what he was thinking,
>>>
>>> Then let him speak by himself
>>
>> I think most of us would be biased to hear him speak (well,
>> metaphorically).  I too am guilty of such, by ignoring advice (even if
>> good and useful) simply because of who the speaker is.
>>
>> Now, I would expect any public figure like Jimmy Wales to get a bit of
>> shit thrown at him occasionally, even from his own ranks.  But I have
>> to say, the tone has been far away from professional here and there.
>> So letting Godwin speaking on his behalf makes sense.
>
> Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many
> speakers on this list, I would argue that one of the implications of the
> abusive deletions is that Jimbo is perceived as having "lost touch with
> base". I do not think letting someone speak on his behalf will help
> restore trust.
>
>
>> It's a fresh new approach to the discussion, because we are not
>> immediately biased by it being Wales speaking.
>>
>> And not to mention that Godwin has a point; this was an opportunity in
>> disguise.  And unfortunately, in retrospect, this wasn't really picked
>> up by the community, instead it turned into another 'fight the power'
>> rebellion.
>>
>> I do not condone Wales' methods of handling the whole situation (hell,
>> I am not sure how good he is at PR!), but that is a minor issue, but
>> since of course it becomes the classic 'tyrant' in action, people
>> focuses on the small 'controversial' things.  Opportunists, I suppose.
>
> Opportunists.... hmmm, I am not convinced.
> But maybe is it fair to remind that the original vote to support removal
> of founder flag was NOT started because of the porn image story, but was
> started because of ANOTHER ISSUE (Wikiversity) that took place less than
> two months ago.
> In the French speaking world, editors have another grunge against WMF
> because of the deletion of all this content on the French Wikisource a
> few months ago, with the argument that it was *maybe* illegal under
> French Law.
> So, it may be that the issues individually taken are small. All together...
>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD