"...when I went to learn more, Wikipedia seems to have failed me."
-- Jimmy Wales, June 29, 2012, regarding Wikipedia's coverage of the topic of incarceration, which had been misleading readers for at least two years.
""Being a spiritual leader, right, that's something I take pretty seriously. " Truth in Numbers, 40:30 (No working link, it's a film).
(Link? Should be obvious by now....)Rachel: let me be the first to out "colonelpanic" as Jimmy Wales. […]Jimmy, you can't say that "Jimmy has at least been dignified enough not to participate in this debate", while posting such a thing under the name "colonelpanic". Nice try, though. [...]And good of you to finally inform everyone that our 2-day adventure in that Washington, DC, hotel was, indeed 2 days - and not a single day as you initially announced on Wikipedia. Ooops.Shall I continue?
Colonelpanic: Don't like the heat? Shut the fuck up.
Rachel: Riiiight, Jimmy. Whatever you say, sweetheart.
Colonelpanic: Holy cow! Has @Rachel just beat out Glenn Close as the Über-Stalker? If JimbHo has a pet I hope it's in a safe-house somewhere. […]you have to accept the possibility, maybe even the probability that these IM transcripts could very well be an extremely well-conceived fake. […] Because he's apparently a horny toad with no common sense, they hooked up in Washington DC for a couple of nights, the sex was good, but he noticed her strange behaviour. […] She got mad, he ignored her, she got madder, and then it's off to eBay with the cum-stained shirt (the lazy man's post-coital towel – it needed a cleaning anyway!)
"Why does France have a security council veto?
France has a per-capita GDP lower than the per-capita GDP of the poorest state in the United States (West Virginia). If you imagine the embarassing poverty of West Virginia or Mississippi, and extend it to the population of Texas, New York, and California, then you've got France.
This is not a first-tier nation."
Jimmy Wales, Jan 30 2003. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye
"The population of Canada is just about 32 million.
Now, here's what I wonder. If the border of the U.S. were moved just 50 miles northward, across the board, what would the population of Canada be then? I think most of them are huddled against our border, secretly wishing..."
Jimmy Wales, Dec 16 2002. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye
I don't know how that "webcitation" stuff works. But if that West V./France quote is verifiable (not as in Wikipedia "verifiable," but verifiable as researchers and average folk understand the term) it's gold.tarantino wrote:"Why does France have a security council veto?
France has a per-capita GDP lower than the per-capita GDP of the poorest state in the United States (West Virginia). If you imagine the embarassing poverty of West Virginia or Mississippi, and extend it to the population of Texas, New York, and California, then you've got France.
This is not a first-tier nation."
Jimmy Wales, Jan 30 2003. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye"The population of Canada is just about 32 million.
Now, here's what I wonder. If the border of the U.S. were moved just 50 miles northward, across the board, what would the population of Canada be then? I think most of them are huddled against our border, secretly wishing..."
Jimmy Wales, Dec 16 2002. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye
These webcitations are actually archives of The Wayback Machine's archives of Jimmy's now deleted blog that I made for redundancy purposes. There are many more quotable quotes available. For some reason both Webcitation and Archive.org are down right now, though.DanMurphy wrote:I don't know how that "webcitation" stuff works. But if that West V./France quote is verifiable (not as in Wikipedia "verifiable," but verifiable as researchers and average folk understand the term) it's gold.tarantino wrote:"Why does France have a security council veto?
France has a per-capita GDP lower than the per-capita GDP of the poorest state in the United States (West Virginia). If you imagine the embarassing poverty of West Virginia or Mississippi, and extend it to the population of Texas, New York, and California, then you've got France.
This is not a first-tier nation."
Jimmy Wales, Jan 30 2003. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye"The population of Canada is just about 32 million.
Now, here's what I wonder. If the border of the U.S. were moved just 50 miles northward, across the board, what would the population of Canada be then? I think most of them are huddled against our border, secretly wishing..."
Jimmy Wales, Dec 16 2002. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
* pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can *
* certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper *
********************************************************************
Jimmy Wales email signature from Nov 10 2001
Jesus what a fucking idiottarantino wrote:Here's a quote that Jimmy used to use as an email signature that gives a bit of insight into his mind.
*********************************************************************
*"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its*
* own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but *
* there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be *
* pursuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can *
* certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper *
********************************************************************
Jimmy Wales email signature from Nov 10 2001
:
I mock you, Jimmy. I giggle at you. Ha ha.My view of Wikia is that we’re spreading the growth of free culture out of purely academic/research and pushing the boundaries of what is possible in new media and free licensing. Exciting stuff to see it really resonate with people…
At the office they are celebrating with a trampoline!
YesEricBarbour wrote:Tarantino, did you save a full copy of his blog?
Such modesty![...] in Mexico City, Bono explained to us how the band leaves the arena after a concert by running through a long plastic tunnel stretching from the stage to their limos. "I need one of those," Jimbeau responded, "because I am like a rockstar too."
Actually, he has been pretty good at milking it - people in the media see him as someone to put on screen for a comment, he does his speaking stuff for silly money. He may not have been able to get it into the silly money of Facebook, but he's making a reasonable living and supporting numerous ex-wives and girlfriends to boot.Vigilant wrote:Wishful thinking.
He started a cult but was too stupid to figure out how to milk it.
For the number of people in the cult, multiplied by their fervor, Jimmy should be living in a golden palace.dogbiscuit wrote:Actually, he has been pretty good at milking it - people in the media see him as someone to put on screen for a comment, he does his speaking stuff for silly money. He may not have been able to get it into the silly money of Facebook, but he's making a reasonable living and supporting numerous ex-wives and girlfriends to boot..Vigilant wrote:Wishful thinking.
He started a cult but was too stupid to figure out how to milk it.
As Jimbo was giving this interview, the Transformers Wikia's community was leaving Wikia in protest of the Wikia Staff lying to the wiki, lying about the wiki, and ignoring objections to their proposed changes."There are a lot of lessons coming out of Wikia. It's where we're seeing communities being built around brands that are very intense. In my presentation, I'm going to talk about the Transformers community. It was created in anticipation of the movie. The community went completely bonkers over this. They built some 6,000 pages of content about the movie, the toys, every aspect of the franchise. What you're seeing is, the traffic continues to grow even though the movie has come and gone. The franchise is benefiting from this kind of community engagement. For brands it takes authenticity that you can't fake. What you have to recognize is that if you're creating something that's good -- a good product or user experience -- you're going to have people who really get into it. There are communities out there and they don't mind dealing with the companies creating that product. What they don't want is to be pushed around. They don't want a top-down approach. They don't want you directly controlling your activity. They want to be heard and actively engaged."
Jimmy Wales, September 23, 2008. Jimmy Wales: Make Your Brands Authentic, Adweek.com
I strongly support the creation of a personal image filter. I worked very hard to reach a compromise resolution which does not close off the possibility of real progress on this. SJ and I will be releasing an FAQ about this soon (tomorrow, I think, but time zone differences may mean a delay of a day or so). In my view, stated vigorously at the board meeting, an early version of the resolution would have been interpreted incorrectly as the board rejecting the image filter completely.
What I think we can do is convene a small group of people (design by massive wiki discussion tends to suck) to design a very lightweight solution, taking into account and resolving genuine and thoughtful objections, and hold a project-wide vote to get a clear instruction for the Foundation. I am confident that this can take place relatively quickly.
I think it important to note publicly that an early version of the resolution was, in my opinion, deeply disrespectful to the community. At least some senitments were expressed that we actually should reach "closure" on this and pass a resolution that would cause the community to think that they should not work together on a new proposal. Those sentiments did not carry the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo, do you have any thoughts about a process for discussing and deciding this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Below I link to a page where I hope we can discuss in a productive way a design that will garner widespread support from the community. Once those who are in favor of a filter have done that (assisted by people who are skeptical but for particular design reasons that can be solved) then I think we should reach out in good spirit to people who have expressed strong opposition. Some people will be unreasonably opposed and we will be unable to get their support. But a great many who have been opposed have been opposed, in my view, because of misleading FUD spread by people who have no idea what they are talking about. An outreach program with a very clear and simple design that anyone can understand, a design which answers as many legitimate objections as possible, ought to change the minds of most of those people. Once we are comfortable that we have something that will be popular, we can hold an RfC about it. Possibly this RfC can be for all languages, or possibly the RfC can be for English Wikipedia. It doesn't really matter because I advocate that each language hold their own vote about turning it on or off, so if English Wikipedia strongly asks for it, I believe the Foundation will develop it and let us vote on using it - and the other languages can respond as they wish. (But I believe that a good design will be so uncontroversial that it will be adopted everywhere quite quickly.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, it is just more words on the topic without anything actually happening. JN466 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo did start the page, as promised. He edited it and its associated talk page on July 15 and July 16. As of today, he has not edited either page since then.I'm starting a page where I hope to see a constructive discussion of the desired characteristics of a personal image filter, with a view towards getting a very high degree of community support for the concept. User:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter with discussions at User_talk:Jimbo Wales/Personal Image Filter. I'll kick the main page off in the next few minutes with some initial thoughts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 19:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
And most of the talking/sniping thereon is being done by a few well-known Commons pests.HRIP7 wrote:Jimbo did start the page, as promised. He edited it and its associated talk page on July 15 and July 16. As of today, he has not edited either page since then.
"Well, as it is, he is on-notice that I am prepared to go meatspace on him if he keeps it up. Despite his defiant response, he may in the fullness of time realize that acting like a junior revolutonary teenager may not be the best way to influence Wikipedia policy and could very well backfire on him in some serious ways.
He has two positions, as I understand it. One, minor elected official. Two, head of the Democratic party in his area. I rather suspect that the second job is held at the pleasure of the higher-ups in the state democratic party, and a phone call to someone there might work wonders.
To date, 3 different Senators have contacted me to randomly suck up to me.
Smart politicians understand that pissing off Wikipedia is not a good idea."
-- Jimmy Wales, according to an e-mail released by Kelly Martin, regarding a Wikipedia user "Karmafist".
Such incredible arrogance. I guess he is referring to U.S. senators? To me this does sound recognizably like Jimbo, but like somebody said in one of the other threads referencing this, I'd like to establish (Kelly?) its provenance better than a second-hand quote.thekohser wrote:"Well, as it is, he is on-notice that I am prepared to go meatspace on him if he keeps it up. Despite his defiant response, he may in the fullness of time realize that acting like a junior revolutonary teenager may not be the best way to influence Wikipedia policy and could very well backfire on him in some serious ways.
He has two positions, as I understand it. One, minor elected official. Two, head of the Democratic party in his area. I rather suspect that the second job is held at the pleasure of the higher-ups in the state democratic party, and a phone call to someone there might work wonders.
To date, 3 different Senators have contacted me to randomly suck up to me.
Smart politicians understand that pissing off Wikipedia is not a good idea."
-- Jimmy Wales, according to an e-mail released by Kelly Martin, regarding a Wikipedia user "Karmafist".
Hey, a couple years late, but here's your link, Dan...DanMurphy wrote:I don't know how that "webcitation" stuff works. But if that West V./France quote is verifiable (not as in Wikipedia "verifiable," but verifiable as researchers and average folk understand the term) it's gold.tarantino wrote:"Why does France have a security council veto?
France has a per-capita GDP lower than the per-capita GDP of the poorest state in the United States (West Virginia). If you imagine the embarassing poverty of West Virginia or Mississippi, and extend it to the population of Texas, New York, and California, then you've got France.
This is not a first-tier nation."
Jimmy Wales, Jan 30 2003. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye"The population of Canada is just about 32 million.
Now, here's what I wonder. If the border of the U.S. were moved just 50 miles northward, across the board, what would the population of Canada be then? I think most of them are huddled against our border, secretly wishing..."
Jimmy Wales, Dec 16 2002. From his blog, A Sharp Stick In Your Eye
That was in an email Jimbo sent to arbcom-l back when I was still on it. I suppose you could try to ask one of the other people who was serving on the ArbCom back then if they still have a copy. Best of luck with that!Triptych wrote:Such incredible arrogance. I guess he is referring to U.S. senators? To me this does sound recognizably like Jimbo, but like somebody said in one of the other threads referencing this, I'd like to establish (Kelly?) its provenance better than a second-hand quote.
He wanted, at that point, to be blocked; he was exceedingly angry at Wikipedia in general and certain people in particular, and a block was a reasonable response. Which is why I roll my eyes every time one of our members here calls for a "general amnesty" or for restrictions on blocking. The idea that Wikipedia could function without admins to block people is idiotic. It's not that blocking exists that is the problem; it's the culture around it that is.Triptych wrote:I was surprised to see Kelly Martin there among those that blocked him (Kelly's was just for a week I think).
It sounds like Jimbo is telling me that it will be okay to publish his publicly-obtained divorce papers in their entirety, and that if anyone who links to them on JimboTalk is subsequently banned, that will be a human rights violation.I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.
Give it a try.thekohser wrote:Jimbo sez:It sounds like Jimbo is telling me that it will be okay to publish his publicly-obtained divorce papers in their entirety, and that if anyone who links to them on JimboTalk is subsequently banned, that will be a human rights violation.I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.
Right?
Tshirts that say, "Jizzed on by Jimbo!"EricBarbour wrote:Give it a try.thekohser wrote:Jimbo sez:It sounds like Jimbo is telling me that it will be okay to publish his publicly-obtained divorce papers in their entirety, and that if anyone who links to them on JimboTalk is subsequently banned, that will be a human rights violation.I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.
Right?
If you like, I'll have some badges made to sell at Wikimania meetings, that say "FUCK OFF JIMBO".
It would have been so easy to phrase that in a way that excluded Wikipedia.I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.
That is a classic example of making a problem that is difficult and nuanced trivial by simply stating that it is obvious if something is right or wrong. So it is true that there existed a sperm covered t-shirt offered on e-Bay and Jimbo thinks it is ok for this to be shoved in his face at every opportunity as a matter of human rights?Zoloft wrote:Jimbo sez:It would have been so easy to phrase that in a way that excluded Wikipedia.I just know that as a matter of human rights, it's wrong to ban linking to legally published true information.
"..it's wrong for a government to ban linking..."
I don't think that's how the sperm got there, but you never know.dogbiscuit wrote:So it is true that there existed a sperm covered t-shirt offered on e-Bay ... Tosser.
It's perfectly plausible if it were a salad being tossed.Poetlister wrote:I don't think that's how the sperm got there, but you never know.dogbiscuit wrote:So it is true that there existed a sperm covered t-shirt offered on e-Bay ... Tosser.
Do you know what you are really good at? Complaining and negativity. Do you know what we need? Positive solutions and effort towards collaborative compromise. -- Jimbo Wales - 11:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia in a nutshell;thekohser wrote:I liked this one, today, regarding our own Cla68 (T-C-L), author of many good and featured articles, which Jimbo has never once done:
Do you know what you are really good at? Complaining and negativity. Do you know what we need? Positive solutions and effort towards collaborative compromise. -- Jimbo Wales - 11:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
...bring light and love and healing and progress... -- Jimbo Wales, 19:25, 17 July 2014
It's a throwaway line aimed at the soft headed.thekohser wrote:Jimbo seems to have ramped up his old prescription for "thoughtful and loving" behavior as the way forward on Wikipedia. Regarding the Media Viewer that most of the community strongly dislikes, here's how Jimbo wants everyone to think about it:
...bring light and love and healing and progress... -- Jimbo Wales, 19:25, 17 July 2014
Does saffron rice have hallucinogenic properties?Zoloft wrote:It's possible Jimbo has been eating too much saffron rice.
He's not been paying attention?Jimbo Wales wrote: On the Media Viewer issue, it might be very very useful if someone or some group of someones could write up an NPOV summary of what the issue is.
And the community could seek a way to better serve both readers and editors. This is the Wikipedia way with articles. Two people are disagreeing? Then the best thing is if some third person comes along and sees a way out of the disagreement by finding a compromise that both parties agree is better than either of their initial preferred options. "Mediaviewer good or evil?" is a question with no happy answer. "Mediaviewer: how to make it better for everyone than the old way" is a question that, if we can answer it, resolves the problem neatly and moves everyone forward with joy and relaxation.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a little bit too cultleadery for my taste...thekohser wrote:Jimbo seems to have ramped up his old prescription for "thoughtful and loving" behavior as the way forward on Wikipedia. Regarding the Media Viewer that most of the community strongly dislikes, here's how Jimbo wants everyone to think about it:
...bring light and love and healing and progress... -- Jimbo Wales, 19:25, 17 July 2014
Part of what he's about. And, as in all charismatic leaders, it's combined with a dose of "one law for thee, another for me".Randy from Boise wrote:That is a little bit too cultleadery for my taste...thekohser wrote:Jimbo seems to have ramped up his old prescription for "thoughtful and loving" behavior as the way forward on Wikipedia. Regarding the Media Viewer that most of the community strongly dislikes, here's how Jimbo wants everyone to think about it:
...bring light and love and healing and progress... -- Jimbo Wales, 19:25, 17 July 2014
...bring light and love and healing and progress... -- Jimbo Wales, 19:25, 17 July 2014
...entirely utterly completely 100%...
There follows a quite entertaining exchange:thekohser wrote:Another way to tell when Jimbo is going to say something false is when he says something is......entirely utterly completely 100%...
That somewhat puzzling last sentence addressed to Brad is presumably meant to be nicely ingratiating, given that Brad has momentarily, even if only ever so slightly, taken the side of Jimbo's adversary; i.e., "along with you Brad, I believe ..." rather than "in your case Brad, I believe ..."This argument is entirely utterly completely 100% unpersuasive. "However, our instance on it being verboten for businesses to officially edit articles about themselves means that we've shut off our access to this quality of information, condemning our articles on businesses to be shallow when they could be rich and engrossing." It is very very easy for archivists and historians employed by brands to interact ethically with Wikipedia. There is no need for them to edit article space directly. And as we know from many many incidents over a long period of time (1) their edits will on average be tediously self-serving PR speak and (2) the press will chew them up for doing it, and rightly so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course, Jimmy, because so very many of them have done that until now. And now that you've decided to publicly piss on them, they'll be even more motivated to take the time to learn our rules and participate here in a beneficial fashion. Flawless logic, Glorious Leader. It's also pretty rich for someone from the WMF to pass comment on "tediously self-serving PR speak", at which your organization excels. — Scott • talk 18:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Again, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I have always been very warmly supportive of people who want to approach us in a transparent and ethical fashion, allowing independent community members to make a determination about editorial matters. That isn't "pissing all over" anyone we actually want here. As for the rest, it's just noise rather than coherent arguments. (Tu quoque fallacy, look it up.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
How can you say that you welcome people approaching us in a "transparent and ethical fashion" when you support a system that forces business editors to become incognito? "Smithsonandco" gets blocked and has to change their name to "JoeLovesAirplanes123", at which point they're merrily unblocked by some admin, then off they go. Look at the renaming logs; it happens all the time. That's not tu quoque, it's just pointing out the gigantic logical disconnect between what you say you support and what actually happens. Your comment about "their edits will on average be tediously self-serving PR speak" is also telling: abuse of our articles for promotional purposes is an artifact of the black market produced by our own policies. These people can't engage with us fairly, so why is anyone surprised that the ones who bother to engage at all are the ones who unscrupulously take advantage of our hospitality?
Trying to prevent it from happening is also pure Whac-A-Mole. High-profile articles may get some defense, but have a stroll around random business articles some time. Look at the names in their edit history. Follow the edits. Virtually none of the people collectively taking advantage of this project on a massive scale identify themselves (and the ones that do, in ignorance, don't last long). Contrast their being allowed to identify themselves as businesses. In which model would their edits be subject to more scrutiny? Up there I said "subject to exactly the same content policies [as] the rest of us", because that should be obvious. Would Business X be allowed to add weasel words or uncited claims to [[Business X]]? Of course not. For anyone to argue against allowing business editing on the basis that they would is to make a colossal straw man. If Business X wants it to be known that their widgets are made from the highest grade of unobtainium ever recorded, they can damn well provide a reliable source to say so or forget about it. Why not subject identified businesses to an even stricter grade of requirements than other editors? The sourcing requirements of BLP covers a whole category of article; turn that inside out and make a new policy for a whole category of editors.
Prohibition is a failure, and Wikipedia needs a 21st Amendment. Mr. Wales, tear down this bright line. — Scott • talk 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
While some of Scott's rhetoric is excessive (and I think self-consciously, even archly, so), there is merit to at least one of his observations: (1) We ask editors affiliated with a business and editing about that business to prominently identify themselves; (2) the most prominent way for an editor to display an affiliation would be in his or her username; but (3) if an editor wanting to be fully transparent (or just naively assuming that's the norm) creates User:CorporationXYZeditor, the account will be blocked almost immediately for a bad username. The community has recently declined to change that policy, so so be it, but it's an introductory awkwardness that arises more often that one might imagine (peek at any day's installment of WP:UAA for examples). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a policy that I have long thought unwise and not particularly helpful with any meaningful problems. There are other problems in how we deal with corporate editing, too. It would be nice to have a constructive conversation about how to improve that, but such conversations tend to be derailed very quickly by excessive rhetoric and, with you Brad, I believe that is likely self-consciously so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
, the proper observation to make at this juncture is that what he calls "excessive rhetoric" is in fact a bog standard human response to his hypocritical sanctimonious bullshit. Statements like that should never be made without a reliable source.TungstenCarbide wrote:your five figure speaking fees.
Jimbotalk: assholes lecturing other assholes.While some of Scott's rhetoric is excessive (and I think self-consciously, even archly, so), there is merit to at least one of his observations: (1) We ask editors affiliated with a business and editing about that business to prominently identify themselves; (2) the most prominent way for an editor to display an affiliation would be in his or her username; but (3) if an editor wanting to be fully transparent (or just naively assuming that's the norm) creates User:CorporationXYZeditor, the account will be blocked almost immediately for a bad username. The community has recently declined to change that policy, so so be it, but it's an introductory awkwardness that arises more often that one might imagine (peek at any day's installment of WP:UAA for examples). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it is a policy that I have long thought unwise and not particularly helpful with any meaningful problems. There are other problems in how we deal with corporate editing, too. It would be nice to have a constructive conversation about how to improve that, but such conversations tend to be derailed very quickly by excessive rhetoric and, with you Brad, I believe that is likely self-consciously so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, my feeling has always been that setting up the Legal and Community Advocacy Department was less about being advocates for the community in dealings with the WMF, and much more an expedient designed to enable the Foundation to do political advocacy like the January 2012 SOPA protest in the name of the community. YMMV. For what it's worth, this is how the thing was announced (only three weeks after SOPA):"Community Advocates" are company employees, bottom line. There needs to be formal organization of the volunteers and frank and realistic negotiations need to take place between the two groups, bearing in mind that objectives of each group are not necessarily identical. A "company union" is no substitute for a real union in hammering out a fair contract... The relationship right now is one-sided. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
[...] Carrite's view is just false - it doesn't reflect the attitudes of the WMF nor the community advocates nor is there inherent tension between the Foundation's goals and the community's goals. When there are frictions, the solution is not to unionize and battle but to fix the underlying problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Today, 9 February 2012, we are excited to announce the start of our building of a new department called the “Legal and Community Advocacy” Department at the Wikimedia Foundation. This new alignment will carry forward the Foundation's goals of advocating for the community in new ways, ranging from fighting for content online, to facilitating community discussions about critical WMF initiatives that affect the community, to better supporting Wikimedia administrators and functionaries, to providing information about legislative initiatives worldwide that impact online content and censorship.
It is interesting.thekohser wrote:It's strange to see Jimmy Wales so heavily disagreeing with Carrite, given the latter's ceaseless support here of the former's role as strategic leader of the Wikimedia Movement.
