Photo: Flickr user lifeontheedge

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

A Question for Danny Wool

Well, two.

1. What's your ultimate goal?

As in, what's the outcome that would make you most satisfied when all the stones have been turned over? Jimmy getting kicked out of the foundation, denounced, and generally losing his status as Wikipedia's banner-carrier? Do you realize that any process leading to that unlikely outcome would have to be incredibly long and painful?

2. How do you feel about Wikipedia?

Don't pull any punches: are you only disillusioned with Wikipedia's leadership, or with the project as a whole?

Update: Danny answered question 2 -- he says he's trying to help wikipedia through a difficult adolescence.


Matthew Brown said...

I'd personally have a third question:

If you were there, Danny, when all these things happened, why did you go along with them? I don't get the impression you resisted any of these things, and given your position, I suspect you at least passively allowed them to happen if not indeed actually collaborated in them.

Cyde Weys said...

In response to the original post: Danny still genuinely believes in the idea of a free content encyclopedia, more so than almost anyone. Look at his recent work with Veropedia (which is trying to increase the quality of articles on Wikipedia) and his thousands of resultant edits from that. So I would say he is only disillusioned with the leadership, not with the idea.

In response to Matthew Brown: Danny was a full-time employee of WMF; he was emphatically not a volunteer. That's where 100% of his income came from. He did not have any other jobs lined up. Many people in these situations keep their mouth shut because they cannot afford to be unemployed.

Still, in the end, without having any other employment lined up, he resigned from WMF in protest after his internal pleas to get things in order went unanswered. So it's not fair to say that he passively went along with the improprieties; he quit his job over them in the end! And the suggestion that he actively collaborated in the wrongdoing he resigned in protest over and is now calling out is so absurd that it merits no response.

Matthew Brown said...

Fair enough, cyde; my original comment here was rather too accusatory. Might be a fairer question to ask how long he knew these things were going on.

There's also the fact that the first time you see something going on that shouldn't, you might write it off as a mistake or slip-up.

Kelly Martin said...

Ben, I know you didn't ask these questions of me, but I've answered them anyway, in my blog. Cheers.

Dan said...

Speaking as a different Danny from the one being addressed here, I still like Wikipedia as a concept; I'd just like to see an end to the cliqueism that results in my being on the receiving end of comments like "You're sure doing a lot to give the impression that you prefer your friend Mr. Bagley to my friend Mr. Wales" (from JzG)
when I dare to express ideas disliked by the ruling elite.

All's Wool that Ends Wool said...

I've begun to answer here:

Dan said...

More of the destructive cliqueism: this comment by Felonious Monk judging people and their ideas solely by which crowd he perceives them to be in. If there's any "crowd" that's most harmful to Wikipedia, in my opinion it's the "crowd" that insists on dividing others into "crowds".