On 05/10/2010 02:57 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard<dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jimbo's actions were >> ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*. >> >> > I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by > "damage" and on what you mean by "no gain." The thesis has been advanced > here that Jimmy's actions somehow damaged us in the view of "the whole > world." I'm only questioning that particular thesis. Whether "the whole > world" would have had a higher opinion of Wikipedia if Fox had run the story > they were trying to manufacture -- instead of the lame stories they have run > -- is also an interesting proposition, but I hope you will understand why I > don't find that proposition particularly credible. >
Counterfactual predictions are always tricky, but my guess is there would at least have been less total news coverage. Almost all the news coverage is currently being driven by the power dispute and the question of whether we're giving in to Fox or not, not anybody actually caring about the original allegations. See, e.g., this BBC News article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10104946.stm Or the left-ish New Statesman (UK) calling our actions the result of a "Fox News effect": http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/05/sexually-explicit-images-news -Mark <http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/05/sexually-explicit-images-news> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
