User talk:Gohn

Gohn, regarding your reverting of "independently wealthy" from Jimmy Wales, you might want to read our editorial policies, specifically No original research and Verifiability. If someone challenges an edit, you have to produce a reputable source that says that very thing (and not your interpretation of it). If you can't produce one, any editor may delete it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

personal control?
You wrote: "He retained personal control of Wikipedia by appointing, in addition to himself, two business partners who are not Wikipedians to the five-member board, thus effectively having a controlling three-vote majority (only the remaining two members are elected community representatives)." 

This is false. I asked Michael Davis and Tim Shell to serve on the board because they are people who understand and agree with my vision for the foundation. There is absolutely no sense in which I control them or their votes. Indeed, in board discussions, it is common that they (and other board members) will disagree with me. I do not control a three vote majority. I have one vote on the board.--Jimbo Wales 15:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You chose them because they agree with your vision, so you stacked the board in favour of your vision. You know they will only disagree about minor details. Gohn 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If inviting people who I trust and who agree with me about the fundamental principles of freedom of knowledge, access to information, neutrality, etc., amounts to "stacking the board" then I plead guilty, but that's one hell of a strange way of putting it my friend.--Jimbo Wales 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

links to google groups
Additionally, the links you posted to google groups are probably not the best reference. I recommend a link to or a quote from the Florida Trend magazine article.--Jimbo Wales 15:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another older comment from you
3. It is not far-fetched speculation that Michael and Tim are just proxies for you. What else are they doing on the board? They are not active editors, nor is there any other evidence that they're interested in matters of Wikipedia policy. However, they happen to be in some business relationship with you. They can be expected to vote your way. If you want to dispell this appearance, can you explain why they had to be on the board, and why they and you together need to have a majority over the actual community representatives? Gohn 18:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Michael Davis and Tim Shell are very active in the day-to-day activities of the Wikimedia Foundation, and Michael Davis particularly so. There is a lot that goes on around here that you clearly don't know about, and that's fine, it isn't required that you know everything that is going on. It is required, though, when you are editing Wikipedia articles, that you do so in a factual, neutral manner, not pushing a particular POV about your feelings on how the foundation ought to be organized. Your not liking it, is not an excuse for misrepresenting it, nor a good reason for you to use the biography about me as a soapbox for your claims.

I have a particular vision for the Wikimedia Foundation projects, a vision which is very open and transparent and known to everyone. Within the board, we have many respectful and thoughtful disagreements and our management of the project is stronger because of it. This includes all the board members, and it is not at all accurate to describe any of the board members as a 'proxy' for me.--Jimbo Wales 15:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I know pretty well what goes around here (i.e. on the website), and the Foundation, whatever else it may also do, is the supreme authority governing Wikipedia. The issue I'm trying to shed light at is simply that you and your appointees have a majority on the board. I haven't said what I like or don't like, I'm interested exactly in representing the facts correctly. Do you deny that you have set up the board in this way in order to ensure your "vision" will prevail even if the community should have a different one? If not, why not create two additional seats for user representatives so that they have a 4-3 majority? Gohn 15:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

hello
Once is an accident, twice is vandalism or at least disruption. -- Curps 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're unblocked (in a minute or two). -- Curps 03:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)