Wikipedia Sucks!

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales

As long as I follow you, what do I see on your twitter, Jimmy?

*Julia Reda promo.
*Pirate Party promo in general.
*Anti-Brexit promo.
*Promo of several English Politicians and the bashing of others
*Pomo of his Wikitribune.

But you are a trusty and you claim to be the founder of Wikipedia. You belonged even to the 100 people with influence according to Time, correct me if I am wrong. Was it in 2006? And Jimmyitalk was often very political, isn't it? And you asked the activist Katherine Maher yourself as a director of WMF, wasn't it?
Yesterday both I and Renee tried to talk with you. Even before I could say hello to you I was blocked and the same happend to Renée. We where both polite and friendly, there was not one reason to block us and I had even personalised my avatar with a picture of myself.

Jimmy, you misuse your position to make your money with readings in this way. You was even a guest in Davos. This is insane and not what you should expect of a man in your position, you are even honoured in The Netherlands with een ere-doctoraat in 2015 and wikipedia got the Erasmus Prijs. Noblesse oblige, Jimmy.
That is how I it feel as a member of a old aristocratic intellectual family, Jimmy. I did nothing wrong and I was a good editor but you are behaving yourself as a complete jerk in this way. This is a huge conflict of interest and again I invite you, because we all know you read here, at least to come over talk this with me all over in a polite, gentleman way. You are invited Jimmy..



(I made a few very small modifications.)

I've got no problem with Jimmy having political beliefs. He's wrong, but being the Founder of Wikipedia doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. Whenever you hear him talk about neutrality of the encyclopedia, which in his view should be maintained whatever it's owner or editors believe, he is totally correct. And his argument that the WMF can and should be politically active where it concerns things that directly impact their model, makes sense, even broadly construed, and it is entirely logical that they do so.

It is only wrong in the sense the public really doesn't understand how much lobbying they do, all off the back of their reader's acceptance of and even donations to Wikipedia. It is also wrong in the sense that what Jimmy says about the separation of the encyclopedia and the views of those who write it, doesn't really happen. The existence of a House POV is obvious, screamingly so.

Not that he has much say on it now, but he's also wrong to leave it to editors to decide things like blackouts and banners, those are not encyclopedia content, they are one hundred percent political acts taking advantage of a supposed apolitical platform. So if they want them, or otherwise endorse them (as they are by allowing it), then they should own them, just like they have to take responsibility for the often misleading wording of their donation drive banners, which of course say fuck all about being a lobbying organisation.