Semi-Debunking Re: Listless Wikimedia "In Chaos" ...

[Dave Farber <dfarber () me com>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com>
> Date: May 16, 2010 8:57:16 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Semi-Debunking Re: Listless Wikimedia "In Chaos" ...

> [For IP, if worthy]
>
>       I've been following this controversy in detail. Sadly, the
> reporting of it is turning into a game of journalistic "telephone".
>
>       Important, co-founder Jimmy Wales did not "resign" overall. He
> did voluntarily give up some special technical editing status he had
> (in the face of some very strong pressure to have that status stripped
> from him for using it in a pre-emptive way which garnered widespread
> disapproval). Basically, in Unix terms, he resigned his
> super-user/"root" bit on the servers. It's not clear if this is more
> than symbolic, if he can *politically* restore that status once the
> attention dies down. It is certainly embarrassing for him.
>
>       Since I'm often a critic of Wikipedia, I'll point to a public
> message by the former *Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation*:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058020.html
>
> "Jimmy [Wales]'s is behaving like a vandal and breaking the very
> notion of our "power in the hands of the community""
>
>       I'd say "chaos" is the wrong word - "intense factional infighting"
> would be more accurate (though when it comes to running Wikipedia,
> what else is new?). Although there are many interrelated topics, the
> gist of the dispute is how to handle some sexual material on Wikimedia
> Commons, a hosting resource (not Wikipedia _per se_), which is, let us
> put it, of less than obvious immediate educational value, in the face
> of _Fox News_ making an issue of it. Civil-libertarians will be
> familiar with such disputes.
>
>       The best single message I've found is this one, from a current
> Wikimedia Foundation board member:
>
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/058301.html
>
> "And I am firmly against reducing the content on Wikimedia to only
> that which is acceptable for children. The world's knowledge contains
> a lot of things that are shocking, divisive, offensive, or horrific,
> and people should be able to learn about them, and to educate
> others. Not including these things doesn't make them go away--it only
> makes it more difficult for interested people to learn from a source
> that tries to be neutral and educational. I don't think Wikipedia will
> ever be (or should ever be) "safe", for the same reason your public
> library will never be, either."
>
> Disclaimer/plug - see the column I wrote for the _Guardian_ more than an
> year ago when a different Wikipedia pornography controversy was in the news:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/18/wikipedia-jimmy-wales
>
> "The combination of moral-panic-mongers willing to practice a politics
> of personal destruction and the ability to anonymously advocate for
> one's favorite fetish on one of the world's most widely read websites
> leads to constant low-intensity conflict. Wikipedia trades off quality
> control for greater production. That same design flaw is manifested in
> extremely weak and failure-prone mechanisms for determining the
> boundary between provocative and profane."
>
> -- 
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com
> Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com