On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 10:29:45AM -0400, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> I recognize that the issue is more about the point and process of the
> whole thing, and that it's not just Wales who deleted images, but I
> think some perspective is useful.
>
> Jimbo deleted 71 images.
>
> That doesn't call for outright rage.
*Nod.*
I agree that a lot of the rage is due to it being blown out of proportion, in
part, this is due to inadequate communication and followup from the side of
Jwales.
factors:
* he could have taken commons delinker into account. It might take a little
while to fix images that shouldn't have been deleted. He was informed of the
issue of in-use images, but chose to ignore it.
* He shouldn't have encouraged others to follow his example without being
more clear about what that example entailed
* He could have gotten almost the same bang for his buck (and a lot less
smoke) by being just a little smarter about things, and following up with
people 1:1
* We sort of expect Jimbo Wales to have a bit more clue about how to do
things. Even if just displaying clue without necessarily deviating from
the course. "Yeah it sucks, but for political reasons it's kind of
important to shoot first and ask questions later, for now. And it's only
for these 71 images, you see, not much work to restore just the few we
mess up"
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
