[Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

[Mike Godwin]

David Levy writes:

>
> Agreed.  As some predicted, Fox News has cited Jimbo's actions as
> validation that its earlier claims were correct.  And because any
> "graphic images" remain, this means that we're aware of an egregious
> problem and have made only a token effort to address it.
>
> Essentially, we've gone from alleged smut peddlers pleading our
> innocence to self-acknowledged smut peddlers flaunting our guilt.
>
> It was an enormous mistake to respond to this "news" organization as
> though it possessed a shred of credibility or integrity.
>
>
The hidden assumption here -- an incorrect assumption, in my view -- is that
there is some universe of possibilities in which Fox News would not have
cited Jimbo's *inaction* as validation that it was correct. I infer from
this comment that you imagine that if Jimbo had not intervened as he did,
there would be no such story from Fox News.  My response is, if you think
this, then you don't know Fox News.

Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated
themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a
given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would
have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling "epistemic
closure" -- all results will be interpreted as validation of cherished
theories.

It is perfectly appropriate, it seems to me, for the community to
second-guess Jimmy (or me, or anyone else working to protect the projects).
But I don't think we should implicitly or explicitly embrace the theory
that, had Jimmy not intervened, there would be no story, or a better story.
 My personal view is that the story Fox News wanted to tell would have been
worse, but even if you disagree about that, let's not pretend there would
have been no story at all.



--Mike