Gregory,

I don't mean this rudely although it will probably sound it but it saddens me that you appear to want to bring down Wikipedia because you don't like Jimbo et al. It seems that you forget all the thousands of people who enjoy editing Wikipedia and the many millions more who use it free of charge on a daily basis. Kids all over the world in schools that can't afford the luxury of membership to expensive educational sites and libraries. Have you any idea of the cost of a set of Encyclopedia Britannica - and Wikipedia is better than that. Yes it has its faults and some rubbish on it but it also has some things of huge value, at very high academic level plus the content is improving all the time.

There is little point bringing down Wikipedia when there is nothing to replace it, citizendum is in it's infancy, and I suspect won't take off so long as it has it's strict rules which prevent even the most eminent editing anonymously. So please don't try and deter people from funding because in spite of all you may think. Wikipedia is succeeding in its mission "to provide free and open dissemination of knowledge to the world, in many languages".

So please whatever you think of the leadership don't keep trying to and discredit and destroy the project. There is freedom of speech and opinion there - look at me, I'm still there (just) and there are many others all working hard to fulfil that mission statement. I really ask you and your colleagues at Wikipedia Review to take a look at the larger global picture. It seems to me you are extending your dislike and mistrust of Jimbo into the project itself - and that really is not fair. A a child, every meal time, I was always told to think of the starving millions could we not extend that to the impoverished millions around the globe who truly need Wikipedia.

Bearing that in mind, I ask you to back off a little - who knows you may find it gives you a warm glow inside.

Sincerely

Giano

I dunno that Wikipedia is hopeless, but based on the events of the past week, I'd say the vector is clearly in the wrong direction.

It will take new leadership to turn it around.

Whether that's a realistic possibility is beyond my powers to predict.

I'm posting this here instead of in the "editors" forum because of the broader implications.

Giano posted this as a response to Greg K's call to write letters to the Editor on Kelly Martin's Blog:

it's probably going to take an entirely different fundraising mechanism to afford that new structure.


Cleverest post I've seen all week.


Right you are Anthony, and frankly, 1 million dollars is peanuts in this business. The reason *why* some people want to take down the current structure has to do with what you are getting at:

* The main evangelist, Jimbo, has another focus, to which his fundraising efforts are directed.
* Wikipedia is a launchpad for Wikia
* Wikia has several times more money than Wikipedia ever had because
* Jimbo can make a profit off it
* If he wants to make a profit off Wikia, great - but then hand off Wikipedia, and stop the duality and
* Let someone else serious manage it - and that means giving up your dictator powers - jimbo.

Jimbo is a fool. He would have been better to make Wikipedia a well-run, professional entity, which managed millions of volunteers, or trained volunteers to manage volunteers. That would have worked. Instead, he let the idea flounder, and moved on immediately, to strike while the iron was hot. OK, that too wasn't foolish, but he did it half assed. He could have let someone else take over the helm at Wikipedia, and did his Wikia thing (and continued to milk the Wikipedia name, which no one denies him the right to do) but let someone else strong and focused do the Wikipedia work, and restructure the thing, and not make it into some little shack office in St. Petersburg that basically hangs up on the hundreds (if not thousands) of people who have problems with the thing, ranging from libel, to unfair bannings, defamation, to whatever else.

Kicking jImbo out (which is what a lot of people think is a good idea) isn't the sole solution to the problem. They need a real organization, with a real founder, with management plans, goals, strategies, who is interested in building relationships that are stronger than the free server service they get from Yahoo.

That's why people say "stop giving them money". What they mean is "force them to change, via shutting off the faucet which is basically being used to fund a for-profit venture"

DL

I'm posting this here instead of in the "editors" forum because of the broader implications.

Giano posted this as a response to Greg K's call to write letters to the Editor on Kelly Martin's Blog:

I'm not prepared to respond to this fully now. But, I will say these short blurbs that come to mind:

• Only a fool would think that Wikipedia could ever be "brought down". At best, it could be fundamentally changed. I seek fundamental change.
• I don't forget the people who enjoy editing and those who freely read Wikipedia daily. After all, I am very much one of those people!
• Jimmy Wales is about 60% of the problem. If you look at the major foul-ups over the past 24 months, he's either created or exacerbated just about all of them. His insults to Larry Sanger; the impromptu "concordat" with Wikipedia Review that he later reneged on because it was a flawed design to begin with; his order to turn on "nofollow" on external links (which didn't apply to many links to Wikia), and his later denial of having given the order; the Essjay scandal; the unfulfilled promise to be open and transparent about the Jayjg affair; the ham-handed creation of Mzoli's Meats; the creepy fund-raising video; the Miltopia/Zscout370 affair; the hosting of and participation in secret "wiki sleuth" mailing lists on his for-profit Wikia servers; his offensive tone to Giano (who should have been praised); his failure to allow Sue Gardner and Florence Devouard to graduate to roles of leadership; the ongoing distraction of his "Wikia Search" that will compete with Google... need I discover more? How, exactly, would Wikipedia be worse off without Jimmy Wales now? Do we really suppose that Wikipedia would collapse within a week or a month of Jimbo's untimely demise in a freak yachting accident? Of course not. Then, why not try having him step away -- completely away -- from the project for a year, and see how things work out?
• The policy and process are about 20% of the problem. If this is supposedly a free and open encyclopedia, then anyone with the ability to write encyclopedic content (with factual sources, whether original, primary, or secondary — just verifiable and cited) should be welcomed to participate. It shouldn't matter if they are white people or black people, paid or unpaid, Catholic or Buddhist, college degreed or high-school dropout. Ability to contribute to and improve the database is the only factor. NPOV doesn't have to result in edit wars — what it's supposed to command is tolerance of and space for all documented viewpoints.
• The anonymous administrators are perhaps the remaining 20% of the problem. People should not be given technical control of other people's creative output and their access rights, if the administrator can't even identify him/herself in real-life to the accused. I'll take 10 self-identified Guy Chapmans for every SlimVirgin, Jayjg, or pre-Lise Durova, any day. (I can't believe I just wished for 10 Guy Chapmans, but there you have it.)
• Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Foundation needs to re-brand Wikipedia as something other than an "encyclopedia". Encyclopedias are published. Encyclopedias are written and (more importantly) edited by accountable editors. Encyclopedias take responsibilty for what they disseminate. Just call Wikipedia a "dynamic information experiment" or a "fluid data loop", and I think a lot of complaints would disappear.

Now, here's the big catch. Most of the people who know Wikipedia really well — that is, the real Wikipedia — understand that there's about a 0.06% chance that even half of these fundamental reforms will come about … especially the one about Jimbo leaving the project. If the project has therefore become so inextricably addicted to ONE PERSON'S governance, what does that say about the "community" aspects of disseminating information to poor Africans (who generally don't have access to clean water and sewer facilities, much less an Internet browser)? Is third-world philanthropy really Wikipedia's purpose, or is that just a soothing mantra to repeat to one's self as one volunteers more and more time and effort to ONE PERSON'S fiefdom? If third-world philanthropy is the purpose, why are there 150,000 outbound links from Wikipedia to Amazon web properties? I didn't know you could have "High School Musical" DVDs shipped to rural Darfur. But I do know that Amazon invested $10,000,000 in Jimbo's Wikia venture. Hey, that would be 7 or 8 years' worth of Wikimedia Foundation budget! Why is Jimbo so good at drumming up money for his entrepreneurial project, but so pathetic at drumming up money for this third-world philanthropy that he won't let go of?

Rather, has Wikipedia's purpose been co-opted by ONE PERSON to be a personal staging ground for all his other pursuits in life? Think about it. Would this be an entity you'd like to see perpetuated? Or would you rather see it rebuilt, even if that rebuilding process first requires near-destruction of the previous unworkable construct? Giano, I turn resolutely away from the former and emphatically opt for the latter.

Phew — now that I wrote all that, I'm thinking I've actually said everything I need to say on the subject!

Greg

DL, the post is here, at the end of comments

Greg,

WP can and will be brought down, once the EU realizes the propaganda machine that it is for the US State department. I have solid EU intelligence sources with whom I am in contact who already know this. This is only a matter of time.

No way, really?

Yup, really. And that's all I'm going to say. Somebody's already on this, actually.

EUthanasia 4 Wikipedia !!!

Jonny

So please whatever you think of the leadership don't keep trying to and discredit and destroy the project. There is freedom of speech and opinion there - look at me, I'm still there (just) and there are many others all working hard to fulfil that mission statement.
Giano

Yeah, and Encyclopedia Britannica on DVD only costs what, $34.95 US?

Yeah, and Encyclopedia Britannica on DVD only costs what, $34.95 US?

I don't think anyone here has such a problem with the basic idea of a user contributed encyclopedia that no solution but destruction of Wikipedia would satisfy them. At least, I hope not. But can the myriad of problems that the site has be solved while keeping Wikipedia? Seeing what happened to the Spanish version, it's unclear that they can.

What happened to the Spanish version?

The "enemy" isn't WP or even a passel of misguided souls on WP.

The "enemy" is the descent into unfair, unwise, and unbecoming practices, including the erratic practices recently exposed, much to the chagrin and horror of more than a few people reading these pages.

I'd like to see those problematic practices reformed.

I'm willing to give the Wikipedians another chance to revisit their treatment of the many alienated and disgruntled editors who have found their way to these shores.

I don't know if that's a realistic goal, but I'm willing to engage in a scientific experiment to find out.

Don't bother sending me a Consent Form unless it Extra Quiltedâ„¢.

I'd like to see those problematic practices reformed.

Credit where credit is due …

Mercury confronted one of those problematic practices and stood up for due process.

The experiment has begun.

Set up a section of Arbcom. to host an amnesty central station.

That's a wonderful (and fair) idea in theory but I'm afraid it would never happen.

I'm surprised to agree with you, for once. (No, pigs aren't flying, I checked)