Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:05:10 +0100 > From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer > Message-ID: > <CAHRTtW-a=G3Lq2UUstusazv4osA0SSRCttYBQ-WFtRh8=11...@mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand? > > > > I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would > be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article > that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia > founder" label. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is now associated > with that effort in the public's eye, for better or worse. > > Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his > fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc. > > > ------------------------------ > > SOPA is a bad example, not least because those of the community who expressed an opinion mostly agreed with Jimmy.
Better examples would be the rumour floated a year or so back that Jimmy was interested in a Senate seat, and Jimmy's porn purge attempt on Commons. The senate bid is a good example because the press were able to differentiate between what Jimmy was planning to do and what Wikipedia was planning. The porn purge is a good example because it shows what happens when Jimmy tries to do something on wiki but doesn't take the community with him. "Jimbo decided there would be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had" implies that Jimmy has a merely to make a decision and the community will dutifully obey. Reality is very different. WSC _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l