Jimbeau the Porn King

There were a few things I decided to keep under wraps regarding Wikipedia and its leader, Jimbeau. However, it appears that ValleyWag got the scoop somehow. And of all the women I knew of, and of all the pictures I'd seen, I never once expected Rachel Marsden. Well, well, well ... More on this when I collect my thoughts.

Helping Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka is a country with 92 percent literacy, including 16 million first-language speakers of Sinhalese. That's a remarkable number for a developing nation, and especially from one that has suffered from bloody ethnic violence and, more recently, the tsunami of 2004, which devastated its eastern and southern coasts. It is therefore quite sad that the Sinhalese Wikipedia has just 478 articles as of today. I would suggest it is largely because the country is overshadowed by its giant neighbor, India. In fact, Tamil, the country's second language, has close to 13,000 articles, which I imagine are largely from India. Though highly educated, the people of Sri Lanka do not benefit from the same attention and aid as their neighbors to the north.

On Veropedia, we are doing what we can to correct this imbalance, by promoting computer education for 100 Sri Lankan students. And you can help with as little as $10. That's enough to pay for two months tuition for a single student, while $100 pays the salary of a teacher for a month. To me this seems a better way to give than to send the money to the WMF, where it will be spent on Board travel, corporate salaries, and planning the requisite Wikimania. So if you have ten bucks to spare (or are willing to forego two trips to Starbucks), and would like to give it to something worthwhile, rather than funding 0.002 percent of the office of the WMF's ED, or 0.0075 percent of the upcoming Wikimania (or, gasp, 0.005 percent of the Board's travel budget), consider sending a young boy or girl to school for two months to learn computer basics. You'll be pleasantly surprised at how rewarding it is.

For more information about this project see the GlobalGiving page or click the icon in the sidebar here or on Veropedia.

The Decline of Empire

I was reading Kevin Phillip's American Theocracy the other day, and was struck by his description of how empires fail. In describing the U.S. of the George W. Bush era, he writes: "Rome, Hapsburg Spain, when it was half of Europe, the Dutch when New York was New Amsterdam, and Victorian and pre-1914 Britain—were just as cocky because they, too, had dynamic origins and also believed that they were different." Thinking about this, I couldn’t help wonder, Does this just apply to political beasts, or is it true of Internet empires as well? Could this apply to Wikipedia? The parallels are fascinating.

No one questions the dynamic origins of Wikipedia, whether factual or part of the wiki-mythology. (Personally, I don't believe either Jimbeau or Sanger founded Wikipedia. The credit should really go to all the early contributors who took a piece of software, brilliant in its simplicity, and developed the culture of accumulating and sharing knowledge. Crediting Jimbeau or Sanger for that is like crediting the poultry farmer who sold Shakespeare his quill with the authorship of Hamlet.) In the early days there was vibrant sharing of ideas about how to make the best possible content by some genuinely talented people. It was intimate and exciting—everyone knew everyone else, and every day there was something new and exciting to keep these people coming back. Content reigned supreme. Sure there was talk about the number of articles (see this great post from February 2002), or the inclusion of fictional characters (seems like this one was easily resolved), but even then the focus was always on quality, and not just quantity (as this post shows ).

People also believed that Wikipedia was different, which is the origin of some of the earliest policies. Imagine Wikipedia today, instituting a policy like "Ignore all rules," but in those days it was par for the course. Curiously, I think Erik stated it best, in this early email, when he wrote: "That our process will work is by no means self-evident. It requires constant discipline and oversight, and because we are in uncharted territory, we can and will make mistakes."
So why do I believe that decay has set in? The answers can also be found in Phillips, who lists several key indicators:

• A popular sense of national decay, economic, moral, or patriotic: Let's be real. This very blog post, and others like it, reflect a common sense of dismay among the active participants today. "Wikipedia is overwhelmed by trolls," "Wikipedia is under attack by SEO," or "Wikipedia has forsaken its mission." While once the focus was on transforming Wikipedia into something truly great, today the focus is on how to defend it from the troublemakers without and within.
• An intensification of religion: which Phillips says "often took form as a global missionary impetus (Spain) or evangelical drive (Britain)." Perhaps that is why I found this post by Mike Godwin so disturbing. Wikipedia has become an evangelical organization.
• Conflict between faith and science: The prominence of the Fringe Theory Noticeboard is alarming. Perhaps more alarming are the creeping victories of the fringe theorists who exploit Wikipedia to promote their ideas, all in the name of NPOV.
• Imperialism and military overreach: In its efforts to be all things to all people, Wikipedia has overextended itself, and this has historically led to the decline of so many great empires. Just typing "empire" and "overextended" into a search of Google Books yields the following results: the Mongol Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the Russian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire, the British Empire, the Aztec Empire, and the Inca Empire, not to mention the imaginary Galactic Empire. Wikipedia is huge, and because of its size it is becoming much too difficult to protect. In September 2006, I raised the issue of Porchesia, an imaginary island that had an article for over a year. How many other hoaxes are out there? How much other more clever vandalism that will likely never be caught? And for those of you who don't think it likely, check out Edward Mipongwa. With all the current emphasis on obvious vandalism ("George W. is a faaaaag!!! LOLOLOL"), the really clever vandalism tends to go unnoticed.
• The burden of excessive debt: There are now over a dozen staff members, several with six figure salaries. International travel takes up a chunk of the budget. The offices are located in the most expensive city in the US. The anticipated budget is $4.6 million , while the most recent fundraiser took in about one-third of that. There can be only two possibilities: either massive debt, or a grassroots organization being uprooted and replaced by a corporate bureaucracy.
• The decline of industry and the rise of finance: or in Wikipedia's case, the admin class. The truth is that I started writing this post in response to a blog post by Chad who commented on the evolving role of admins as functionaries rather than content creators. He, in turn, is commenting on an article by Neil Raden, who writes that "the net result is that discussion of policy far exceeds discussion of substance today."

I can only end with Phillips's conclusion: "The evidence of the previous hegemons is that politics and reform bog down, and that Darwinian processes usually bring about a successive power elsewhere." The parallels between Empire and Wikipedia are stark. Are Phillips's conclusions soon to be realized?

Kill, Kill, Kill

The discussion about Wikimania 2008 on the foundation-l mailing list has come to a sudden halt. It was "killfiled" by Austin, a list moderator who seemed to think that it was getting out of hand and no longer productive. It seems that the answer to charges of censorship (and many people claimed that the cons of the Alexandria bid were either censored or given inadequate voice) is even more censorship. That is unfortunate, especially after Florence's reassuring email that the matter was being investigated and that if it was determined that a mistake was made, it would be corrected.

What bothers me most of all, however, is not simply the poor way--and Austin admitted this--that the killfile was done, but that it was Austin who performed the killfile. After all, Austin was on the original jury that decided on Alexandria in the first place. Is this yet another petty wikicrat censoring people who challenge his poor judgment?

Apologies aside, this looks bad, and I think two steps should be taken: 1) Austin should be removed from moderating foundation-l; and 2) Austin should be removed from any jury selection for future Wikimanias. Perhaps this will get the message across that censorship of ideas, or anything that can even be interpreted as censorship of ideas, will not be tolerated by the WMF.

Anthere takes the lead ...

I have been critical of Florence in the past, but I just read her most recent email to the Foundation mailing list and I have to say that I am impressed with the way she is taking a leadership position in the debate over Alexandria. She said neither yes nor no, but she recognized the concerns of countless Wikimedia types, and began to outline a strategy to deal with those concerns. She began speaking of contingency plans, and the role of the WMF Board--and not just the ED--in making the final decision. She is asking for a risk analysis--and risks can include security threats and losing the goodwill of a dedicated team of Egyptian Wikipedians that are working against all odds to put this event together. Most of all, she is listening to the vox populi, the broad community, and not just a limited group of insiders. All of this should be recognized, and Florence should be commended.

I am not saying that I will agree with the final decision. I do, however, feel much more secure knowing that this decision is being taken in a responsible manner. And it is not an easy decision to make ...

Let my people go ...

For those of you who read my previous blog post but didn't bother to check out all the links, I suggest this one link, a Youtube video. Watch it to the very end. Read all the credits, for your daily dose of irony.

The Promised Land

This year's Wikimania promises to be held in Alexandria, Egypt. I won't be going. Truth be told, I would probably be a persona non grata there anyways. At least I am in good company:

1. HIV patients: Apparently there is something of a government crackdown, and people testing positive could well end up in jail.
   
2. Homosexuals in general: I'm sure no one wants a rectal exam from the Morality Police.
3. LDS: Well, if they don't go to church they should be okay.
4. Shi'ites: They are, to Egyptian courts, a euphemism for an attack on Islam.
   
5. Baha'is: Not such a big problem as I don't know many Baha'i Wikipedians.
6. Anyone who isn't Christian, Muslim, or Jewish: Well, they can always convert.
   
7. Critics of Mubarak: Well, the Mubarak article can always be überprotected. Better start now.
8. Bloggers: If you don't say anything controversial, you should be okay.
   
9. People who believe in freedom of expression: See above.
10. Women: If they bring their husbands they should be okay.
11. Australians: Go figure.
    

Now, Egypt is an amazing country. The food is great, the people are friendly, and the sites and culture are fascinating. Still, I can't help wondering if there may not be a better venue for this year's Wikimania

Picture This ... II

The WikiEN mailing list is amusing. A quick browse through the topics shows that the discussion is currently focused on two main themes: the inclusion of pictures of Muhammad, and the inclusion of porn.

Now, I am not a Muslim, but even I can be bothered by the less than subtle nuances of this juxtaposition. We show Muhammad, so we should be able to show porn too. Alternately, we show porn, so we should also be able to show Muhammad.

I do not know the answer to this quandry, but I do wish people would show greater sensitivity. And I can understand the indignation of Muslims when pictures of their prophet are discussed with the same flippancy as pictures of a bunch of wankers.

As a final note, if you have not yet done so, please sign Veropedia's petition against the extension of copyright for performers in the EU. It is disturbing that a petition calling for censorship can get hundreds of thousands of signatures, while we still struggle to get a hundred.

Singing for Money

There has been a lot of talk recently about recent discussions by the EU about extending copyright for performers from 50 to 95 years. According to Commissioner Charlie McCreevey, this is largely intended to provide for artists from the 1950s and 1960s, for whom these royalties serve as a "pension" in their old age. With no respect intended toward these artists, this is an unwarranted incursion into the public domain, as it will hinder access to important cultural works, many of which have already entered the public domain. And, it seems that few artists will actually benefit from this extension.

Veropedia has decided to respond by collecting names on a petition against this proposed change. Mike has written a great post on Veropedia's blog to launch this endeavor, and Chad has set up a new petition site to collect signatures. I urge everyone to sign in support this modest effort, so that we can send a potent message to the EU.

If you feel that these works should remain free and unhindered by new copyright restraints, please show your support by signing our petition.

Inherit the Wind

Well, Florida has finally decided to allow the use of the word evolution in the classroom. Of course, they will have to preface it with the scientific theory of evolution.

Question of the day: What the hell is wrong with these people?

Dream of the day: Maybe we'll have better luck teaching kids in Guatemala.

Picture This ...

Before beginning my post, I want to remind people about the fundraiser to empower young people in Guatemala by training them in computers. Less than $800 to go. Please help.

Having said that, I'd like to comment on the debate going on over depictions of the Prophet Muhammad on the English Wikipedia. The fact is that this poses a true dilemma: does Wikipedia censor itself to appease the religious sensitivities of many million Muslims? It's a damned if you do; damned if you don't situation. Iranian officials are already calling for a boycott of Wikipedia, and while this may have no financial ramifications, it is a slap in the face to the Wikimedia Foundation's mission of "providing the sum of human knowledge to all people ..." My guess is that "all people" would include the 71 million Iranians, 162 million Pakistanis, 32 million Afghanis, and 25 million Saudis, to list the first groups that would be immediately impacted by a ban on Wikipedia. That's almost 300 million people, and if other countries pick up on it, the numbers could well increase.

That's why I decided to see what the current Board had to say on the matter. In fact, the issue of these images was asked of all the candidates (except Frieda) in the last election. In response, Erik, Kat, and Michael Snow each answered that they did not see it as a Board issue.

I beg to differ. If the mission of the Foundation is, indeed, to reach all people in the world, then the mission has been compromised under their watch. Several hundred million people could be denied access to Wikipedia and its sister projects because of all the brouhaha. Now, some may say that that's a good thing, but nevertheless, under this Board's watch, the Foundation is failing in fulfilling its mission. And I always thought it was the role of a Board to ensure that an organization's mission is maintained.

But there is also another point worth considering. Some of these countries, not least of them Iran, have vibrant communities of Wikipedians. Could the Board's actions, or lack thereof, imperil the safety of these local Wikipedians? Before rejecting this out of hand, I want to remind the Board and staff that back in 2003-04, a Wikipedian in one of these countries came under threat of arrest because of his involvement with Wikipedia. Jimbo will remember who it was, and what steps were taken. I just wonder whether the Board's inaction might endanger other Wikipedians, in official or less-than-official ways.

Note that I nowhere suggest that these pictures be removed. I am just as stymied as anyone about the solution to this problem, but hope that the Foundation's leadership shows greater sensitivity to this issue, and considers all the possible ramifications. Most of all, I hope they take some measure of responsibility.

Fundraising

Veropedia is launching a fundraiser. Not like the Wikimedia fundraiser, mind you. This fundraiser—far more limited in scope—is intended to help indigenous youth in Guatemala obtain basic computer and internet literacy to empower them and their communities. It is a small project, and all that is needed is $840. To any Wikipedians involved in the "Save the languages" debate, this project is run in Spanish and K'iche', a local language, which does not even have a Wikipedia yet. In the attached image you can see a student showing her family how to use a K'iche'-language CD-ROM for kids.

The fundraiser is run by GlobalGiving, a great website that promotes smaller, dedicated charitable projects around the world. To support this project, click on the widget, either here, or on Veropedia's main page, and make a small donation.

So, for those of you who are tired of supporting bloated travel budgets and six-figure executive salaries, here's a chance to really make a difference, one kid at a time.

I like Wikback. It's a great place for people to vent about Wikipedia, and it avoids the repetitious and ill-organized fiasco that the mailing lists have become. Furthermore, the fact that it has no official standing makes it a great place to get all sorts of people—banned and unbanned—to discuss the jerk du jour, scandal de la semaine, and masturbatory monologue of the month. And they can do it without fear of repercussion. It's the perfect complement to WikiEN-l, WP:ANI, Arb Com pages, RfA, VfD, and any number of other acronyms that keep the heads of the uninitiated (and even the heads of quite a few initiates) in a dizzying spin. In fact, I think ^demon summed it up best with the following image, which would make the perfect logo for the evolving WMF.
The problem is that Wikipedia is not about Wikidrama, or at least it wasn’t intended to be that. Wikipedia was once about building an encyclopedia—a reliable one to boot—that people anywhere could rely on. Where are the forums to discuss article improvement drives or quality standards? Once, a long, long time ago, those were topics of heated debate, but no matter how vicious the debates could get, they ended up benefiting the content, benefiting the encyclopedia, benefiting Wikipedia. They certainly were a lot more interesting than all the Arb Com intrigue.

Or has the encyclopedia become secondary to the social networking site that anyone where anyone can be an admin? Perhaps its time to change the name from Wikipedia to Wikispace.

Poetic Interlude

After the drama of the previous post, I thought I'd simply break the pace with something a little unusual: a poem by Richard Aldington, one of my favorite poets to write from the trenches of World War I. In "Time's Changes" he comments on how each moment, regardless of its intensity, is actually quite fleeting in the grand scheme of things. It's certainly worth remembering, especially when caught up in all the drama ...

Time's Changes

Four years ago today in Italy
I gathered wild flowers for a girl—
Thick-scented broom, wild sword-flowers,
The red anemones that line the ways
And the frail-throated freesia
Which lives beneath the orange boughs
And whose faint scent to me
Is love's own breath, its kiss …

To-day in sunless, barren fields
I gather heads of shells,
Splinters of shrapnel, cartridges …

What shall I gather
Four years from today?

The Day the Foundation Stood Still

There has been a lot of controversy about me in the past, particularly about how I once banned Erik. I've taken flak for remaining silent on this, during my run for admin and again for my board run, but each time I have refused to discuss it. Well, the times have changed, and I will now explain exactly what happened from my perspective. Rather than recreate the events which occurred two years ago, I will simply reproduce in full an email that I sent to Delphine on April 20, 2006, the day immediately after the event. The email will be reproduced exactly as it appeared, including typos. It will be the last thing appearing in this post.

By way of introduction, however, I would like to argue that Erik has consistently sought full and ultimate power over Wikimedia for himself and himself alone. During the Board election in which Erik was first elected, Florence relayed the following to me:

Anthere2: there was something odd at some point
Anthere2: he said he wanted to be CEO/chair
Anthere2: I told him I disagreed and explain why
Anthere2: he then said
Anthere2: I do not want power, I have my own foundation to build
and
Anthere2: then , I must be the board member in charge of the strategy and the CEO

Anthere2: I said "the strategy is in the hands of board entirely; not one person"
Anthere2: and "it would be stupid to define the strategy along, then apply it"
Anthere2: but he disagree and thinks he can handle the job

In case you are wondering who "he" is, this is from a related chat:

dannyisme: what else ?
Anthere2: he talked about me becommming president
Anthere2: BUT
Anthere2: in the long run, him being chair/CEO of the Foundation
dannyisme: i assume you told brad all of this when you spoke to him
Anthere2: roughly, that's about it
Anthere2: no
Anthere2: I told him only one thing
Anthere2: Anthere2: [03:09] I had Erik for two hours on the phone today
Anthere2: Anthere2: [03:09] he told me something a bit amazing
Anthere2: BradP: [03:09] Did he ask you to vote Jimmy off the island yet?
Anthere2: [03:09] well, many things, but one related to Amgine
Anthere2: [03:09] yes, of course
Anthere2: BradP: [03:09] (I'm not kidding)
Anthere2: [03:09] of course he asked me
Anthere2: [03:09] nothing new, right ?
Anthere2: that's all we discussed

And now for the email:

Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 06:25:21 EDT
Subject: Re: About what happened yesterday

I think your email warrants a response. There is certainly a huge
amount of hysteria in this particular instance. Perhaps it is worth
reviewing the entire case to understand what happened. I trust that
privacy will be maintained.

1. This week, the Foundation received a legal threat, termed by Brad
"the most serious legal threat we have received so far." The basis of
this threat was the statement by a very serious Florida-based group
with a very serious New York attorney that the Wikimedia Foundation
alone is legally liable for the actions of its admins, as they are
working on behalf of the Foundation.

2. In other words, we are acting as publisher, rather than as bulletin
board, negating the basis of any legal protection we might
have--anywhere.

3. Brad, myself, and a very small handful of En admins were aware of this.

4. At Brad's request, the two articles in question were stubbed and
protected. Brad wanted this to be done specifically by me, as an
employee of the Foundation, and not as an admin, which would feed into
the argument of those threatening us. The nature of the threat was,
and is, to be kept highly confidential. While the threat may have been
resolved in this instance, it could be used again, and we do NOT as
yet have a satisfactory answer to it.

5. WP:OFFICE was left off the article protection intentionally.
Suffice it to see the history of the WP:OFFICE page or the history of
articles where this was previously used ([[Jack Thompson (attorney)]],
for instance) to understand the attention that WP:OFFICE draws to
articles. This was done in consultation with Brad and the other En
admins who were aware of the circumstances and approved, after the
fact, by Jimmy.

6. Two admins, Conti and flcceloguy, attempted to put a WP:OFFICE tag
on the article. It was removed and they were left with emails
explaining that this was an extenuating circumstance. They both
accepted this in private emails.

7. Yesterday afternoon, Erik entered the debate by unblocking the
article and stating emphatically that there were no grounds for it to
be protected.

8. This was discussed with Brad. At that time, there was no doubt in
our minds that Erik was acting recklessly to score a point and win
himself credit as a community hero against the ogre that is the
Foundation. It was felt that Erik, given his past history with the
Foundation, his supposed understanding of sensitive issues, and his
knack for histrionics, was attempting to make a much bigger point than
he claims, i.e., him v. WMF. I still have no doubt that this was the
case.

9. I was instructed by Brad to "Nuke him." This was then approved by
Jimbo and done. Jimbo's response was that it was bound to come to a
head at some point with Erik.

10. Erik then called the Foundation office. I told him that I am not
in a position to answer him and instructed him to call Brad.

11. Erik then posted to the various lists, claiming victimhood.

12. Only then did Erik speak with Brad. I do not know who called who,
but this was only after Erik had posted to the lists. By then he had
kicked up a shit storm. I believe that this was his second reckless
action. He complained publicly first, and asked questions later.

13. Brad spoke with Erik, and it was "agreed" that Erik had acted
recklessly. They (Brad and Erik) then agreed that Erik should have his
ban reduced to 48 hours. I did this.

14. By now the genie had been let out of the bottle. Jimbo panicked,
and removed Erik's ban after this had been negotiated with Brad. He
sent us an email marked Confidential in which he claimed
simultaneously that Erik was acting in good faith, and that he was
challenginig the Foundation and acting recklessly.

15. Shit continued to hit the fan on the mailing list.

16. Most recently, Angela and Anthere have restored Erik's admin
status on En and Meta respectively. Neither of them have bothered to
investigate what happened. Jimbo is noticeably silent.

Do I have regrets? Yes. I wonder, but am not convinced, whether
WP:OFFICE should have been used. As I see it, this was a no-win
situation. Erik played it for what it was worth. As a result, Brad's
position is being challenged, and the position that Openness rather
than Responsibility has gained a boost and a "martyr." It is ironic
that this comes at a time when En is caught up discussing whether one
or more admins are leaking confidential and potentially compromising
admin information to an anti-Wikipedia website (see the WikiEN mailing
list). The argument against it--admins are "trusted users."

I will not go public with this. There is too much at stake here for
the Foundation. I can deal with a bunch of users saying I am an
asshole, and prefer that to divulging the confidential nature of the
potential threat. I am more concerned that by the slap in the face
that Brad received from Jimbo, Angela, and Anthere, by revoking the
compromise he had reached with Erik--Erik had accepted some
responsibility, and they absolved him. Nor will I apologize to Erik,
who, I firmly believe, acted recklessly for purposes of
self-aggrandizement at the expense of the Foundation.

Danny

Lunch and the Audit

A funny thing happened a couple of weeks ago. Sue Gardner invited me for lunch. Curious about what she could possibly want, I agreed. She seemed really pleased, as the following email indicates: "Perfect, yay! I am CCing Cheryl, my assistant, and will ask her to schedule something for us. My time in St Pete will be pretty brief and over-scheduled - so Cheryl, if Danny can't make lunch/dinner whenever I'm free, see if you can make us a slot for coffee or a drink or even breakfast ;-)" (smiley face in the original). Well, this was a bit too eager … a bit too over the top … so I gracefully declined.

A week later the WMF's audit came out.

What’s the connection? Well, I knew that the audit would come out clean. There was no surprise there, given the amount of time expended on it. But there's the rub: the amount of time. As Florence explained in her email: "And why did we need more time? … there had been some turnover in Foundation staff (e.g., the accountant), which resulted in some loss of institutional memory that made it harder to do the audit preparation." To compensate for this, the Foundation hired Mona Venkateswaran, an old crony of Sue's from the CBC, to fly down to St. Pete on a regular basis to help out with the financials. The result was, effectively, a forensic audit.

To me, however, this raises a few questions. Regardless of the drama surrounding Carolyn Doran, the current audit covers the period July 1, 2006 – July 1, 2007. For six of those months (July 1 – January 19) I was a member of the Audit Committee. For nine of those months (July 1 – March 20) I was one of three people in the office entitled to sign checks. For ten of those months (July 1 – April 1), Brad was in the office, entitled to sign checks. In fact, the whole Carolyn episode lasted just three months. So, my questions are:

1. Why not ask me about some of the problems? In fact, I have emails to Sue dating from August 8, 23, and 31, offering to help resolve any financial question. For instance, the last of these emails reads: "I understand there is some confusion regarding Walla. I can fill you in on all the information, if you like," followed by my phone number. Never once did I receive a response. (I did, however, provide Delphine with the precise information in mid-December.)
2. On Friday, December 14, Brad Patrick sent an email to the Foundation mailing list stating that, "I will miss Sue in San Francisco, as she is a great lunch date." In other words, he had lunch on at least one occasion with Sue. Why was he never asked about the discrepancies?
3. Would it not have been cheaper to go to the source, rather than to fly down a forensic accountant from Canada to conduct an audit in the U.S.?
4. If all the problems were from Carolyn's tenure (and I do not believe this), did Jimmy, indeed, cover the costs from out of his own pocket, as promised?

These questions worry me. I do not know why Sue chose to ignore my offers to help. Perhaps she was busy, but from her invitation to lunch it appears that no matter how busy she is, she will find the time if she really needs something (breakfast, coffee, drinks ...). I can, however, see the end result: a former colleague of hers from the CBC is entrenched in the Foundation. Considering Jay Walsh's (Director of Communications) background, it is not the first time that it has happened either. So, what is next? In other words, when will we see another of Sue's cronies appointed to some position of influence, perhaps even to the Board?

In the meanwhile, I will pass on lunch with Sue.

Money makes the world go round

There's a lot of money out there. According to Newsday, presidential hopeful Barack Obama managed to pull in $7.6 million dollars since Tuesday, while the Clinton campaign, troubled for money, announced that Internet donations in the past two days have exceeded $5 million. It's ironic. After all, the Wikimedia Foundation ran a two-month fundraiser for a website that reaches across party and even national, lines, yet barely managed to raise 10 percent of what these two candidates brought in over two days.

Now, let's get real. The future direction that a world power takes is far more important than a summary of Season 3 of Lost, no matter how comprehensive … no matter how well annotated. On the other hand, the goal of Wikipedia is free education, and that should draw in some money.

Maybe it's because Obama and Clinton, and even McCain, are campaigning for change, plain and simple, while Wikipedia campaigned for more of the same, and resorted to tired, old techniques that just didn't cut it. Maybe instead of a close-up of Jimbo's eyes, so wildly reminiscent of The Blair Witch Project, or a series of long and rambling blog posts by a guy who calls himself Eloquence, the Foundation might actually pick up the pace and become a charity with a mission. Maybe instead of focusing on a hearty round of self-congratulations, future fundraisers set out a program for change, and explain why every penny counts.

Maybe …

Dead Poets Society

World War I stripped the world of a generation of poets: Rupert Brooke, Wilfred Owen, John Munro, and Joyce Kilmer are just some of the young men who left only their voices, expressed in their poems, as a monument to their lives. Almost a century has passed since then, but copyright laws and Google itself seem to be trying to keep these men silent.

I have at home a first edition of Songs of Peace by Irish poet Francis Ledwidge. Composed on the battlefield and in the barracks, Lord Dunsany wrote in his Introduction (1916) that these and other poems like them, were by "gods lesser than Those whose business is with destiny, thunder and war, small gods that haunt the groves, seen only at times by few, and then indistinctly at evening ..."

Indistinctly, indeed. While Ledwidge died in 1917, it was almost impossible to find his work online. I searched for it through Google Books, but all that appears is the title page. The excuse, as given, is as follows: "Our partners decide how much of the book is browsable — anywhere from a few sample pages to the whole book," and "if the book is under copyright, and the publisher or author is not part of the Partner Program, we only show basic information about the book, similar to a card catalog, and, in some cases, a few snippets." Well, there are no snippets — just a title, for a book by a man who died in war almost a century ago.

Why are Google and its partners silencing this author, an obscure poet, barely remembered, but worthy of being read? Even Amazon has just one copy of this volume, at the hefty price of $97.74. After all, it hasn't been published since 1917.

Rather than just complaining about this absurd abuse of copyright, I have typed up the book in its entirety and posted it on Wikisource. I hope that very soon I will be able to copy it to Veropedia too. It may not be much, but is my small protest against this gag order against a long-silenced voice. So, please join my protest and read a poem by Francis Ledwidge. Put an end to the gag-order stifling the voices of this lost and silenced generation.