Comments on: Swartz for Wikimedia http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:00:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Pablo Stafforini http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170985 Pablo Stafforini Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:50:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170985 For lazy timberites, here's the direct link to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote/vote" rel="nofollow">voting page</a>. For lazy timberites, here’s the direct link to the voting page.

]]> By: Rick Perlstein http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170720 Rick Perlstein Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:25:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170720 Brother Swartz would have my vote. If I had one. Brother Swartz would have my vote. If I had one.

]]> By: Aaron Swartz http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170606 Aaron Swartz Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:02:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170606 Wow, Harry, I'm deeply honored! Many thanks; I hope someday I'm able to return the favor. Wow, Harry, I’m deeply honored! Many thanks; I hope someday I’m able to return the favor.

]]> By: Doug http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170575 Doug Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:38:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170575 I first read the headline as "Smartz for Wikimedia", which, given the content of the post, would have been pretty accurate too. I first read the headline as “Smartz for Wikimedia”, which, given the content of the post, would have been pretty accurate too.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170574 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 01 Sep 2006 07:33:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170574 [I tired to leave this comment on his blog, but it crashed] Aaron, somewhere I lost thread of your argument, though I think I've got the gist. Let's examine the basics: "The Board consists of five directors. Since June 2004, two of these seats have been elected." This means that the board will do what the three permanent members want it to do. That's just a fact. Thus, the two elected members are some sort of advisory helpers. They have no power when in conflict with the others. Now, as far as I can grasp what you are saying (and I may be wrong), I think you believe that since "the vision at the top sets the path that will be followed", you can provide a vision which is true to the spirit. But that would have to be done by strength of vision alone, as voting power is not an option per above. If, hypothetically, just for the sake of an interesting discussion, the <a href="http://www.bvp.com/news/pr.asp?id=818" rel="nofollow">$4 million of venture capital</a> invested in Wikia generates imperatives that conflict with the vision (remember, VC's want a big *payoff*), there wouldn't be much you could do against that. I mean, you could argue for your vision, but in such a conflict I'd bet on the money every time. But the upside of being pure of heart is that I doubt you could be bought-off with some IPO shares :-). [I tired to leave this comment on his blog, but it crashed]

Aaron, somewhere I lost thread of your argument, though I think I’ve got the gist.

Let’s examine the basics:

“The Board consists of five directors. Since June 2004, two of these seats have been elected.”

This means that the board will do what the three permanent members want it to do. That’s just a fact.

Thus, the two elected members are some sort of advisory helpers. They have no power when in conflict with the others.

Now, as far as I can grasp what you are saying (and I may be wrong), I think you believe that since “the vision at the top sets the path that will be followed”, you can provide a vision which is true to the spirit. But that would have to be done by strength of vision alone, as voting power is not an option per above.

If, hypothetically, just for the sake of an interesting discussion, the $4 million of venture capital invested in Wikia generates imperatives that conflict with the vision (remember, VC’s want a big payoff), there wouldn’t be much you could do against that. I mean, you could argue for your vision, but in such a conflict I’d bet on the money every time.

But the upside of being pure of heart is that I doubt you could be bought-off with some IPO shares :-).

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/comment-page-1/#comment-170570 bi Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:33:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/08/31/swartz-for-wikimedia/#comment-170570 I would vote, but I've been taken over by wiki-political apathy. I wonder, will this whole exercise have any impact on the quality of the content of Wikipedia, or the quality of the user experience? I would vote, but I’ve been taken over by wiki-political apathy. I wonder, will this whole exercise have any impact on the quality of the content of Wikipedia, or the quality of the user experience?

]]>