Not knowing, but Commons has their own VPs (in many langs), IRC
channel and mailing list. I don't see the good reason those particular
things on the project are continued to discuss on this list.
Cheers,
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wale
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> My purpose here is for us to stop chattering about this aspect of things
> - which I don't care about. People seem to want to fight me on it,
> perhaps expecting me to dig in my heels. Everyone loves a good fight,
> even me, but this is not a fight that we need to have.
Wh
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> We are engaged in a process that will lead to some
> much-needed changes at Commons, including the continued deletion of some
> of the things that we used to host.
>
Where? Behind the scenes? On one of the internal mailing lists?
___
On 5/9/10 3:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
> Sure, he tricked the press into thinking the images were permanently
> removed, then when the story blew over, you added them back. Everything
> went perfectly according to plan.
>
> Right Jimmy?
Of course not. We are engaged in a process that will lead to som
On 05/09/2010 05:36 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not
>> pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and
>> people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local
>> art works with sex an
Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation
> and I took action which ended up averting the crisis. In the process I
> stepped on some toes, and for that I am sorry.
The apology is a positive step. The claim that you averted a crisis
is not. I hav
John Vandenberg wrote:
> Err, that happened days ago on Jimbo's talk page and, less directly, here:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:TheDJ&oldid=38893008
I was [humorously] referring to this mailing list's current threads.
There are forums in which such a comparison is comm
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> > On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> >> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and
> Jimmy
> >>> was
> >>
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:29:28PM +0100, Peter Coombe wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had
> threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they
> couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you
Дана Sunday 09 May 2010 10:53:23 William Pietri написа:
> On 05/08/2010 10:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied
> > sexual activity" in BDSM images like
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images
> > like
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 04:36:19AM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, Noein wrote:
>
> > I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are having these very questions
> > now. Is it good for the WMF that we're asking them?
>
> Eloquence is power. And it is good that you are asking.
I always
On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy
>>> was
>>> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/05/2010 05:46, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> On 5/8/10 10:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they
>> were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due
>> process is important
On 05/08/2010 10:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual
> activity" in BDSM images like
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are
On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>>
>> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy
>> was
>> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the
>> poor deletions have been re-reversed. I
On 5/8/10 10:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> The deletions themselves aren't the problem; the manner in which they
> were carried out is. As a lawyer you should understand that the due
> process is important.
I understand that and apologize for it. There was a crisis situation
and I took action
On 5/8/10 5:56 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just
> sit up like a good dog? We don't just say they're wrong, we join in to
> congratulate them.
I think it is important to note that to a very large extent they were
right - we were hosti
On 5/8/10 5:11 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> If we believe, as Sue does, that this protection against outside
> influence is a good thing, then Jimbo is a weak link so long as he can
> enact the changes some outsider wants of his own accord.
Oh, but I can't really. In this case, I was in - and rema
On Fri, May 7, Noein wrote:
> I'm powerless. Am I? I think many of us are having these very questions
> now. Is it good for the WMF that we're asking them?
Eloquence is power. And it is good that you are asking.
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Noein wrote:
> I agree with Mike Godwin that thi
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 4:06 AM, David Levy wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>> All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
>> deeply misleading.
>
> At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
Err, that happened days ago on Jimbo's talk page and, less dire
The question is not about your honesty, Mike, but the WMF board. In
authorizing their statement, did they expect that Jimmy would take the
sort of action he did? In practice they are the only ones who have any
control over what actions he takes; I would expect that after an
hysterical over-reaction
Florence writes:
Besides the fact Mike is using a language far too convoluted for many
> speakers on this list,
Ouch! If I do say something too convolutedly here, please send me a note,
and I'll rephrase accordingly.
> I would argue that one of the implications of the
> abusive deletions is th
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Larry Pieniazek
wrote:
>
> The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and
> again we've seen that without precipitious action, the consensus process
> stalls out.
I've seen Jimbo make this argument as well. Say, in essence, "The
commun
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
Anthere said:
> However, the lost perception that the community is in charge of its own
future
> (eg, the way it operates, the power structure), is not a detail.
> It will impact our entire future.
The problem is that the community isn't "in charge" of anything. Time and
again we've seen that wi
On 5/9/10 1:42 AM, Svip wrote:
> On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard 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 thinkin
On 9 May 2010 01:01, Florence Devouard 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
On 5/8/10 7:31 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>>
>> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
>> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
>> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
>>
If you intend to build a house, you build some foundations first, or at the
very least you create a plan to follow. Quick solutions are not necessarily
a bad thing, but there is a difference between a solution and actions that
only cause damage. Personally i doubt that this would have generated the
Adam,
could you please continue existing discussions instead of creating new ones
again and again?
kind regards
teun spaans
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> (Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous
> draft)
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18
On 08.05.2010 23:02, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>>
> We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
> and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
> not repeat.
>
Probably this is happened twic
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>
> We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
> and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
> not repeat.
> We do think project: if we alr
(Sorry, ignore the last two sentences - they're left over from a previous draft)
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that
> a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding
> towards something tha
Mr. Godwin, are you aware that, before Jimbo acted unilaterally, that
a discussion of policy had been opened by him, and was proceeding
towards something that had reasonable support, based on the legal
issues that he implied were the source of his hurry to do something.
That was derailed by his a
On 08.05.2010 17:48, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is
> given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary
> circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers
> will be controversial. (If they were un
> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
not repeat.
We do think project: if we already had careless interventions with
desysopping, users retiring a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> While there is much to be said about Jimbo's role from everyone, that's not
> Mike's point. His is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, "Sit down and work
> out the issue of the images, which is the most important, and then revisit
> social
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create disorder nor to
> preserve disorder. It's not the nature of disorder to need creating or
> preserving.
>
> Creating and preserving order is a much harder challenge. Obviously,
> creati
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Mayor of Chicago, Richard J. Daley:
>
> "The policeman isn't there to create disorder;
> the policeman is there to preserve disorder."
>
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist. ;-D
>
I've always loved that quote. Me, I want neither to create d
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>> You're misunderstanding what I wrote here. The words "not individually" were
>> chosen for a reason.
>>
>> Let me put it this way -- sometimes a police officer has to use physical
>> force to stop further violence from having. If you inferred
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Imagine a world where every single media and government on the planet
is given free censorship on the sum of all human knowledge. That's what
we're king of."
I agree with Mike Godwin that this crisis is an constructive
opportunity, not just a destruc
> Marc Riddell writes:
>
>
>> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of
>> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important
>> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a
>> more Foundation-comfortable direction
I'm generally in favor of Jimmy's leadership, or the idea of project
leadership in general. See my March 27 post opposing the poll to
remove his Founder flag, on meta. I'm also strongly in favor of reform
in the area of sexually explicit imagery on Commons and other
projects, see the many threads I
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>
> However, as someone who doesn't have a financial stake, as a non-Wikimedia
> Foundation employee, as an Internet libertarian, I don't see where you get
> off doing anything _but_ admonishing Jimmy's actions. His actions appear to
> be comple
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 02:06:09PM -0400, David Levy wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> > All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
> > deeply misleading.
>
> At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
>
Idiot!
That's his
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/
Mike Godwin wrote:
> Similarly, I don't favor "attacks on free speech" -- but like Nat Hentoff and
> other free-speech theorists, I recognize that free speech depends on active
> intervention and rule-making sometimes. I know you are trying to be
> provocative, but what you write here suggests tha
Mike Godwin wrote:
> All metaphors are at least somewhat misleading, and some metaphors are
> deeply misleading.
At least no one is comparing Jimbo with Nazis or Hitler yet.
David Levy
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Uns
Marc Riddell writes:
> Mike, please stop and listen. The Community, which is the heart and soul of
> this very Project, is ventilating, and making some extremely important
> points. Please stop trying to control, and re-direct, this dialogue in a
> more Foundation-comfortable direction. Listen an
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches that are demanded"!
>
> Perhaps, but yours is no better. When you attack a village it is
> because you want something they have (riches, land, women) or you just
> want revenge for something. FOX
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> Ah... I'm actually sort of good at this kind of thing, having mentioned
> aspects of it in oft-quoted "essay"s (such as [[:en:WP:BRD]].
> If people want, I could do a talk or workshop on that topic at
> Wikimania? This might reduce wikidrama
On 8 May 2010 18:31, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>>
>> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
>> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
>> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 08:48:29AM -0700, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Jimmy's decision to intervene changed the narrative they were
> attempting to create. So even if you disagree with some or all
> of the particulars of Jimmy's actions, you may still be able to
> see how Jimmy's actions, taken as a
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> Defending means lessening the chance of the opponent to succeed. If
> you throw all the riches that are demanded and then some over the city
> wall, that's not defending, that's capitulating.
>
Wow. Even worse metaphor! "All the riches tha
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>>
>> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just
>> sit up like a good dog?
>
> No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad metaphor. When your village is
> attacked an
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
> To: mnemo...@gmail.com, "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>
> Date: Saturday, 8 May, 2010, 17:27
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike
> Godwin
> wrote:
>
> > I want to write persona
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> So instead we just give in to them? We get attacked and decide to just
> sit up like a good dog?
No one is acting "like a good dog." Bad metaphor. When your village is
attacked and subject to future attacks, you build defenses. (Better
met
Sydney Poore wrote:
> The clean up project initiated by Jimmy on Commons has brought much needed
> attention to a long standing problem.
And to Hell with the "toes" (i.e. valued contributors who retired in
disgust) "stepped on" along the way?
David Levy
_
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> 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 comm
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> It wasn't a response -- I hadn't read your comment yet. But when I did see
> your comment, I thought it missed the point that Fox was always going to
> congratulate itself on its story, regardless of what we did or didn't do in
> response. I'v
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 pro
> on 5/8/10 12:21 PM, Mike Godwin at mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the
> consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do
> so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an
> o
On 8 May 2010 17:40, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:Most of the
>> debate has been
>> about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images.
>>
>
> So fix it.
I'm flattered that you think I h
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment.
>
> The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community
> discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not
> censored" should not be used to h
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:Most of the
> debate has been
> about Jimmy, not about Commons policy on non-educational images.
>
>
So fix it.
--Mike
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy
> was
> the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the
> poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's
> absolutely no
On 8 May 2010 17:27, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
> I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment.
>
> The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community
> discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not
> censored" should not be used to halt discus
On 8 May 2010 16:48, Mike Godwin wrote:
> To the extent that Jimmy's intervention has triggered a healthy debate about
> policy, I think the powers he used, and the decisions -- not individually
> but taken as a whole -- that he made are justified.
Perhaps, but that is a very small extent. Most o
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but
> instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked
> extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of
> themes that I'v
On 8 May 2010 17:21, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I believe you misunderstand both what Jimmy was trying to do, and what the
> consequences of it are. I could elaborate on this, and will be happy to do
> so privately, but as I said, I think focusing on Jimmy means missing an
> opportunity to do something
Mike Godwin wrote:
> I think it's also worth remembering that when an individual like Jimmy is
> given extraordinary cross-project powers to use in extraordinary
> circumstances, this more or less guarantees that any use of those powers
> will be controversial.
"Given" is an odd word choice if you
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
>
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to
> > have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than
> > with the story Jimmy in effect created f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I disagree with the suggestion that it would have been better for Fox to
> have gone with the original story they were trying to create rather than
> with the story Jimmy in effect created for them.
I assume
I want to write personally -- not speaking on behalf of the Foundation but
instead as a longtime participant in online communities who has worked
extensively on free-speech issues -- to offer my perspective on a couple of
themes that I've seen made in threads here. The first is the claim that
Jimmy
73 matches
Mail list logo
