Proposal talk:Remove JimboWales name from Rules

There's not enough in this proposal to judge it good, bad or indifferent. Would someone like to set forth some arguments for this beyond "feel weired [sic] to see his name wondering if he himself insisted to include his own name in the rules" & "Is he a person who cannot control his own desire to be a control-freak?" I don't know if the person who proposed this is simply disgruntled, has some specific point (which can be addressed in another way), or is just trying to stir up trouble. -- Llywrch 23:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there was already a similar proposal with more specific links, see Proposal:Remove Jimmy Wales from Board. I don't really know why this was deleted, maybe having Jimbo is one of the principles that are not subject to debate. Regards, --ChrisiPK 23:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The german WP has no rules with Jimbo Wales name. I would say this proposal in one that belongs to the en:WP and they should care about that. --Goldzahn 23:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Goldzahn. As far as I know, Jimbo's name doesn't appear anywhere in the English Wikinews rules either (except in a direct quote taken from him that appears in a section about the origin of Wikimedia NPoV policy). This is an English Wikipedia specific issue, and so it probably doesn't belong on a site devoted to the discussion of issues that affect all Wikimedia projects. Gopher65_talk 00:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to discourage us from saying "it doesn't belong here"... when in fact none of us know what DOES belong here, because it's an evolutionary system. We don't know what issues to tackle until we hear what issues there are, right? -- Philippe 03:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't it belong here? Wikipedia is part of Wikimedia and therefore Wikimedia Strategic Planning is the place to discuss what to do. --15lsoucy 01:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Founding principles #5. This link is included at the bottom of the Proposal page. It DOES belong here.--121.84.145.253 10:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local community decision

I believe this should be a decision for the local community. I don't think that this should be decided/discussed here on the strategy wiki, but on the english wikipedia. If the community wants to take away Jimmy's personal rights, they could. Lodewijk 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Foundation might have a very clear interest in asserting that project rules not refer to any individual people by name instead of by capacity. 75.55.199.5 23:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lodewijk : this is enwiki specific (it actually took me a minute to understand what this was exactly about, being from another wiki...) so it should be discussed amongst the local community of that wiki. Darkoneko 07:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you may be right. This may be a proposal that is completely limited to en.wikipedia, or it might be a poorly thought-out proposal to define or reduce Jimmy Wales' relationship with WMF projects. My response above was an attempt to engage the person who proposed this, & get her/him to explain what exactly she/he wants. Failing that, I doubt anyone would care much if this proposal quietly dies; I know I won't. -- Llywrch 15:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see Founding principles#5, This founding principle applies to the entire wiki projects. If it's really limited to enWp, I would say, do not include his name in Wikimedia project founding rule. --121.84.145.253 10:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree

I disagree. The proposal kind of explained nothing, except that it alleged to dictates and to God. Then, I have to compare emotions of the proposal with my emotions, that claim: no, Jimbo is not God, and Jimbo is not dictatorial. I cannot relate to the emotional reason, so therefore I must reject it. Rursus 13:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a poorly written and conceived proposal. That said I am curious as to why the "Remove Jimbo from the board" proposal was deleted as intentionally disruptive. I think at least the concept of phasing out his "founder's seat/chairman emeritus" position merits serious consideration. There is plenty of concern about founder's syndrome and whether at least Jim should have to run on his own merits. There has definitely been a history, for better or for worse, of Jim dominating the Wikimedia board. As far as strategic planning his role, insofar as it is an "annointed" position, should be fair game. NTK 19:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree NTK. Gopher65_talk 02:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem I see with removing Jimmy Wales from any formal position with WMF is that he will still have a lot of influence on it due to his personal relationships with members & staff. And removing him may backfire & actually strengthen his influence in more ways because he was unceremoniously dumped. Which is why I keep repeating that his role ought to be clearly defined: is he actually in charge (in which case, he has been doing a piss-poor job by being so out of touch with the actual day-to-day business of not only the English Wikipedia, but most of the Wikimedia projects), or does he merely serve in a ceremonial role of being a spokesman of the "Wikipedia philosophy" (which, IMHO, would fit him better & make far more people happy). Or something in between? -- Llywrch 17:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?

Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, have you seen any law in modern country that includes an individual name? I live in Japan, and if I see some guy's name is written in the constitution, clearly his name would make a massive impact on me. --121.84.145.253 10:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages of constitutional monarchy

One can justifiably criticize the wasteful pomp and ceremony of traditional monarchs, and reasonably mistrust any political power they might retain. Even so, in times of constitutional crisis and political turmoil a constitutional monarch can offer a way to a new beginning, such as when Juan Carlos succeeded Franco or in Norodom Sihanouk's efforts to stabilize Cambodia. We should consider this carefully, because we can't take for granted that the Wikimedia Foundation will always exercise good governance (consider the hiring of a felon as chief operating officer, for example). It is at least conceivable that Wikimedia, "office actions", and other top-level powers over Wikipedia could be subverted by some outside interest that gains influence over key offices in the organization. It is in just such a situation that it is reassuring to have one person hold some power who we know is on our side, because he had a major role in bringing Wikipedia into existence. The risk that he would abuse his position needs to be weighed against the hope that he would use it well. Mike Serfas 02:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems reasonable

"jimbo" seems totally reasonable, but i think things work well enough that he could be removed from the rules (we'd laugh at countries that had leaders names written in as exceptions) i do woner how decisions get made on policies at wiipeida though. if we come up with strategies here, what moves them to wikipedia??