[Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates

Sat May 8 16:11:55 UTC 2010

I assume that's a reply to my saying that Fox is likely to use the mass
deletions as proof of a guilty mind, yes? I'd be really interested in
having you expand on this.

Perhaps I simply misunderstand how irresponsible and influential Fox
news is, but I would have thought that being able to show that the
images aren't illegal while also showing that we're having a reasoned
discussion about whether we want the legal ones or not would have been
an effective counter to the negative PR Fox is creating. It isn't clear
to me that sacrificing our values and the story "They're guilty because
they just deleted a bunch of images we called them out for" is better
than not sacrificing our values and the story "We still think they're
hosting child porn" but which could be countered. Still, the main issue
for me is what this means outside the current firestorm.

After all, isn't insulation from exactly this sort of inappropriate
outside influence exactly what Sue was touting as a *major* strength of
Wikimedia projects just last December at the Dalton Camp lecture? And
here we see that Jimbo is vulnerable to this kind of influence, and has
the ability to alter content radically.

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. Indeed, he can
apparently even make changes that don't have traction among the
community. At least if Fox got to some other editor or admin they'd have
to limit what changes they made, lest they be too far outside the
community's comfort zone - but Jimbo can get away with just about
anything. Perhaps we're not so insulated as Sue thought. I regard this
as a problem, do you not?

- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkvljUgACgkQst0AR/DaKHtpsACfdgKD5e7CdKzHcPm6koeyyR1Y
23kAn3TBiJ+rMIaPV7qCclwMm7L6DPFF
=yp3u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----