User:Stan2525/Statement against Jimbocracy

Statement of the Wikipedia Community against the Rampant Curse of Jimbocracy, which has overtaken the Encyclopedia to a Point in which Jimbo may say anything and it becomes Law

Recently it became apparent that the words of Jimbo Wales overrule anything. What he says becomes an instant rule. While this may be his prerogative, as he is the owner of Wikipedia, it reflects poorly on his claim that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia. Therefore, we suggest that if Jimbo feels that something should become a rule, he should see if the community of Wikipedians approves it first. Otherwise, he should rename Wikipedia's slogan to Jimbo's encyclopedia. It is an insult to those who have contributed so much to this project, for everything to be decided by one man, and yet for him to claim that Wikipedia is a free and open project for all. We stand against Jimbo-worship, which is ultimately bad for the project, not some userboxes of a polemical or political nature. Jimbo is becoming the Big Brother of Wikipedia, and so we suggest that instead of the current logo, if Jimbo wants Wikipedia to be a 1984-like society, to change it to a picture of Jimbo Wales. Because we are seeing the most disturbing hypocrisy. People are praising the open and free nature of Wikipedia, then turning around and adhering to Jimbo's every word.

Comment by Jimbo-worshiper

Voting is evil. We do not have votes at Wikipedia. We sometimes have polls, but the purpose of a poll is solely to explore community consensus.--Jimbo Wales 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation: What Jimbo says is law. Obey! But seriously, this is not a "vote". This is a declaration, a statement. Learn to read! --Revolución hablar ver 10:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Signed

The following signers, proudly sign this petition, and are not afraid of any harassment from administrators or Jimbo Wales himself.

--Revolución hablar ver 00:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
--Agreed. "Freedom is Slavery" is not my motto. Of course, like the next comment says, this is probably a useless gesture, as is my manifesto, but hey, this is a protest vote. The Ungovernable Force 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
--Agreed. Anyone who declares their motivation "undoubtably good" should be treated with absolute skepticism, and permanently banned from administering public knowledge. Maybe a class-action copyvio suit could pry this project of his greedy hands. 02:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
--Absolutamente Verdad People don't edit because this is jimbo's site. The edit because they like the ideal of a free and open encyclopedia.--God of War 23:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
This much I agree. NSL E _(T+C) at 01:42 UTC (2006-02-24)
-- Agreed in full. Coolgamer 22:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed somewhat. I do believe that Jimbo usually tries to respect community consensus, but I also agree that he certainly SHOULD respect community consensus. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed for the most part. Jimbo's a nice guy, but he's not a god. I love Wikipedia, but i'm not willing to be someone i'm not for it. Heh, I think i've started a meme. Karm a fist 23:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Wolfpackfan72 23:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, not quite the Port Huron Statement, but exciting none-the-less. The most frightening thing in this recent userboxenkampf is the brownshirt-style rogue actions admins suddenly feel empowered to make in advance of settled policy, because they think, Jimbo says so, as well as the apathy, passivity or disdain for upholding real policy because, It's inevitable, Jimbo says so. StrangerInParadise 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree - If you want me to spread the word, just ask. -- infinity0 23:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Marmaduque 23:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Signed, and gladly. Rogue 9 14:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed -- JW has a political (quasi-Randian) agenda and will never see why he should have to give up this godhead/Benevolent Dictator for Life) position. -- max rspct leave a message 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is much good about Wikipedia, but also much bad. Alienus 22:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --HK 15:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Agree No contest --the Dannycas 02:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Agree A concessus of one is a dictatorship --Jamie Battenbo 12:11, 08 April 2006 (BST)
Here here. Sic semper tyrannus! Mgekelly - Talk 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yay for the Naysayers --Shawn 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Agree with the general sentiment. heqs 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
More-or-less. There's a bit too much on the rhetoric flourish in the statement, but Wales has indeed seemed to disregard process too often of late. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see the ownership turned over to "the community" (though I recognise this is easier said than done). Even if Jimbo is a benevolent dictator, do we have to take it on faith that he will always be one? ntennis 02:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia will never be truly free while the emperor is still in charge. --APK 05:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Definetly Agreed, Free Knowleage, not restricted knowleage Spyco 05:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. In Jimbo's own interest to follow this suggestion. TheJabberwʘck 02:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - Jimbo apparently feels that he can rule by fiat. If so, then fine. He should be forced to do all the editing. And no, editing his own biography doesn't count. --Daniel 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Raised fist Aye. Canæn 05:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed although I think more harm is done by Jimbo's fanatical followers than by him directlyA Geek Tragedy 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

See talk page.