SOPA and a strike, Jimbo requests comments Options

[SB_Johnny]

that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.

Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch!

Taking Wikipedia down even for an hour would prove beyond any doubt the danger of concentrating information in one website, where politics can easily get in the way of the user experience.

Particularly when it's the "politics" of a flaky megalomaniac.

[Cla68]

that's not implied - he flat out states that the foundation has paid lobbyists (plural) - not that Jimbo's word has a reputation of being accurate.

Lobbyists are public record. All lobbyists are registered (unless they literally make no money or spend almost no time lobbying, which would not make them a real lobbyist). I checked the public database on lobbyist and I do not see anyone registered that is affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation. I was not surprised.

IOW, we just got Jimmy on record this morning talking out of his ass? Nice catch!

I asked for more information.

[radek]

Poor Marek's comments (he is our 'Radek') got hatted by Jimbo as 'personal attacks'. Personally I thought they were spot on.

Eh, if anything, him hatting these comments probably brought more attention to them.

He's probably using the term "lobbyist" in the "some guy that I can get to call their congressman" sense. I got some of these "lobbyists" myself. I could be wrong.

[SB_Johnny]

He's probably using the term "lobbyist" in the "some guy that I can get to call their congressman" sense. I got some of these "lobbyists" myself. I could be wrong.

He specifically said "our paid lobbyists".

OTOH, whose lobbyists? Sue is keeping her distance, it would seem.

[thekohser]

I asked for more information.

Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Dow Lohnes is not registered with the U.S. Senate as representing the Wikimedia Foundation. Neither is Dow Lohnes so registered with the U.S. House.

Sounds to me like Jimbo remembered the name of the firm that Godwin told them they should work with, but that the WMF hasn't actually hired them yet, but Jimbo wanted to sound like the Big Man on Capitol Hill, so he started dropping phrases like "our paid lobbyists" when he really meant to say "that lobbying firm that Godwin mentioned we ought to consider working with", because "our paid lobbyists" sounds so much more mature.

No Wikipedia article about Dow Lohnes. Must be an insignificant, non-notable firm without any substantial accomplishments. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Ponyta and Rapidash, and they never successfully lobbied a single case for their clients!

Or, it's possible that the WMF only hired Dow Lohnes in the past 44 days:

(1) General rule
No later than 45 days after a lobbyist first makes a lobbying
contact or is employed or retained to make a lobbying contact,
whichever is earlier, or on the first business day after such
45th day if the 45th day is not a business day, such lobbyist
(or, as provided under paragraph (2), the organization employing
such lobbyist), shall register with the Secretary of the Senate
and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

This post has been edited by thekohser: Mon 12th December 2011, 12:36pm

[carbuncle]

No comment...

SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[Ottava]

Here is the lobbyist database. Jim Burger does not appear. However, Dow Lohnes does. I could not find anything "Wiki" related.

I do like that Dow Lohnes represents DeVry, though.


It appears that this "lobbyist" merely gives some advice but nothing really. I work with lobbyists and political campaigners all the time, and it appears that Wikimedia doesn't even have an amateurish involvement in the field.

That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 12th December 2011, 2:06pm

[TungstenCarbide]

I asked for more information.

Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.

[Tarc]

I asked for more information.

Jimbo answers, but not before scolding Cla68 for asking such a "hostile" and "bad faith" question!

Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.

The question itself was a valid one, but we all know that Cla68 was there posing the question in an accusatory "what are you hiding?" manner. As scurrilous as Jimbo may be, don't pretend that much of the WR regulars are any better.

[thekohser]

No comment...

SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Deliciously classic.

[cookiehead]

Jimmy is assuming bad faith with his "hostile and paranoid" personal attack.

[Ottava]

One of the first rules of lobbying is that you don't announce your groups position or that you are lobbying. Otherwise, you make it easier for opponents to know how you are moving and to spend funds to counter it. Even if Jimbo wanted to get something moving on this issue, he basically shot himself in the foot right at the beginning.

I have a feeling that most of Jimbo's supporters are under aged or not US citizens, so it doesn't really matter what their opinion is. Do you see the ACLU pandering on message boards? Instead, they have a strategic media blitz, have set lobby meals/events, have been involved consistently, etc. I disagree with the ACLU quite often but they are at least a model of how people are involved in the system. Even their write-in campaigns are very small, strategic, and deal with a specific issue or small aspect of a bill.

[cookiehead]

Jimbo views wikipedia editors as subordinates. He thinks they work for him.

Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465265847

[Peter Damian]

No comment...

SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Deliciously classic.

Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious.

[thekohser]

Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465265847

That ain't his first visit to that article to spray paint it.

He seems to have a known history of intolerance of the notion that certain natural foods can have antibiotic properties.

Maybe an ex of his is selling the Manuka honey out of her home, so he's just doing his part to make her means of income more difficult.

[carbuncle]

That means that the WMF is dead in the water in terms of effective messaging. Lobbyists are needed to help craft language and get through the legal process for many aspects of a bill - hearings regarding committees, hearings regarding the language, hearings regarding votes, etc. This late in the process, there is no way to really change anything. And a good lobbyist needs months of preparation for an individual law. Google, in order to lobby, sent one of their top people to be an Obama campaign person. There is no real way to say that Wikimedia will have any true participation in this.

I doubt Jimbo will have any trouble getting this covered by the press, even if no "strike" takes place. As with the Italian law, that could be enough to scupper it. Lobbying in this case probably means getting Jimbo invited to speak before some panel of politicians. I imagine a phone call to the EFF could probably have accomplished the same thing, but what do I know?

[SB_Johnny]

No comment...

SOPA and Wales role
Sue,
Is Jimbo acting as an agent of the WMF when discussing SOPA with politicans?
TCO (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi TCO. Jimmy and the board and I have been discussing SOPA for about a month. AFAIK Jimmy hasn't been officially asked to represent the Wikimedia Foundation or convey specific messages from it to anyone, but I'm sure he's been giving his views with people he happens to be talking with. SOPA is a terrible, badly-drafted bill that could cripple sites like Wikipedia, Google, etsy, Flickr and lots of others: to the extent that Jimmy is speaking against it, that is great for the Wikimedia projects, and for a free and open internet. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...Fifth, just to put everyone at ease (mainly hostile and paranoid people, to be honest), I am in constant communication with Sue, we are talking to the board, I'm talking to our lawyer, etc. Any action that I personally take will be to represent the Foundation and the Community, as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Deliciously classic.

Quite, but I would also colour in "AFAIK" (Sue) and "I am in constant communication with Sue" (Jimmy). Delicious.

Indeed, as well as "our" lawyer, maybe... is the lawyer in question still in any real sense his lawyer? Is Jimmy becoming the nerd-hanging-on?

[cookiehead]

Here's one example of that. Jimbo edits Manuka Honey to flag it that is needs basic copyediting. But has never edited the article, and instead of taking the time to make even small improvement, flags it for others to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=465265847

That ain't his first visit to that article to spray paint it.

He seems to have a known history of intolerance of the notion that certain natural foods can have antibiotic properties.

Maybe an ex of his is selling the Manuka honey out of her home, so he's just doing his part to make her means of income more difficult.

not his 1st visit, his other was to likewise tag but not improve the article, to complain about a friend using it for cancer treatment for their kid or something. So all that gnashing of teeth to passive aggressively try to get other editors to fix his gripe. It's a small non-controversial article (at least it is now). Of all the articles with promotional campaigns going on within them, this rates a 2 on a 1 to 10 scale.

It's not Mzoli's Meats, for sure.

Maybe he wants Cla68 to kiss his ring and get busy editing it for him. Jimmy does carry grudges from years ago, this much is clear. Also that he doesn't seem very intelligent. Anyone know his IQ?

[Emperor]

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

[nableezy]

Professional lobbyists are a waste of money. They're just in it for the paycheck. Better to have Jimmy Wales and some Wikipedians go to Washington, and present their case with all sincerity. They can learn what they need along the way, using the internet if need be.

Yes of course, because it is well established that sincerity trumps money and connections in Washington.