[Search-l] Simpy Chichimichi - "Wikia Search - Not Happening"

[Seth Finkelstein]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 05:35:07AM -0400, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>> I'm sorry Seth is trolling about it, but you know, that's Seth's way.
>>
>>	Jimmy, is this sort of very personal attack justified by
>> anything I've written? Inversely, is there *any* downside at all to
>> you from flaming me here? Do you see why I might develop a certain
>> skepticism?
> 
> Seth, on a Wikipedia mailing list recently you accused me of
> handling a difficult and complicated matter as legal maneuvering
> rather than assuming good faith.

	At the risk of too much detail, for anyone interested:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-April/069370.html

	Pre-emptive rebuttal #1 there addresses the issue. But this
objection is, I think, the heart of the dispute. I'm very bothered by
the way an ideological system is constructed so that someone being
anything less than completely credulous, and doing some critical
thinking, can be accused of acting in bad faith. And then, given that
they weren't "assuming good faith" - which seems in practice to be
"take whatever Jimbo says at face value" - they're considered fair
game for much harsher, *personal* attacks.

	Someone who made his living as a futures trader is a sharp
character, not a giddy (literal) evangelist. I see no reason to
sign-up to a taboo that we must not talk about interests. That is, if
you speak of peace, love, and happiness, and I point out matters of
funding, partnering, and execution, that shouldn't be deemed gauche
and not "assuming good faith".

> Here you have been speculating about investment matters that you
> don't know anything about.

	Even if that were true - The horror, the horror. And I cited
your own statement.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325896.300-interview-knowledge-to-the-p
eople.html

> Of course there could be downside to flaming you, if I was flaming you. 
> But I don't take it to be a flame.  I am just saying, you have come 
> here with negativity from day one, and when you say things that aren't 
> true, then I simply have to say so.

	Repeat: I'm actually less skeptical, in a complicated
way, than search super-expert Danny Sullivan, see
http://searchengineland.com/061229-193718.php

	Again, there's the extremely disturbing aspect that
"negativity" justifies flaming a person. C'mon Jimmy, it's not that
I'm so deeply sensitive, but *own* *your* *words*. Objectively, it's
*not* justified, and coming from someone in your position, it has the
possibility of being far more damaging than you might intend.

>> "We have the test servers scheduled for install on Friday, and then I
>>  want to turn people loose on them to start playing around and testing."
> 
> I am sorry that you haven't been invited.  I think you can understand 
> why, though.

	This is a shameful deflection of a supported point by using a
personal attack. The only defense I can make is to point out how wrong
it is to do that.

-- 
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  http://sethf.com/
Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php