“ Am I crazy ? Jimbo has posted a weave on his user talk page promoting an auction of some of his stuff, which he has refused to confirm would not benefit him personally, ” editor program Floquenbeam said on December 3 .. “ This is self-promotion 101, right ? I ‘ve told him if he does n’t remove it, I will. That ‘s policy, right field ? There ‘s no Founder carve-out, is there ? Just because the Wikimedia Foundation ( WMF ) told him to post to his exploiter talk page…does n’t mean he can actually do it, overriding our self-promotion policy, right ? Can I get some promptly feedback on the appropriateness of my removing this train of thought, if he does n’t ? And whether ( I ca n’t believe I have to say this ) I ‘d be justified in blocking him from his talk page if he restores it ? If any one of us tried to pull this, they ‘d get a warn and a parry. ” Wales pushed back, saying he ’ vitamin d spoken to the WMF communications and legal departments and that they ’ d agreed a simple post about the auction on his user talk page would be very well. “ Characterizing this as ‘ self-promotional ’ or ‘ advertise ’ is honestly silly, as I do n’t think anyone would credibly imagine that I ‘m hoping some random talk page lector is going to be the buyer, ” Wales said. “ I can equally imagine that if I had defied the control panel and refused to communicate with the community about it, person would be getting inflamed over that. ” ad
The editors weren ’ t having it. “ I would n’t go so far as to call it ‘ honestly punch-drunk, ’ and I do n’t see how the latter character changes anything, ” editor XOR ’ easter said. “ Who would want such an NFT ? A big fan of Wikipedia, probably, and one who ‘s invested ( emotionally ) in its history and inside baseball. ” The conversation went on like this for about a day before another editor program shut it down, saying it was “ past the point of fat discourse. ” The string announcing the auction on Wales ’ talk foliate was removed but another train of thought remains where he ’ second answering questions about the auction and NFTs from early users. An e-mail thread on the Wikimedia-L listserv is more mensural but even has some academic arguments that is park with Wikimedia play. Some users are refer that he ’ mho taking something from Wikimedia and could use the money to fund his commercial enterprise WT : Social. Another user said “ The concept of NFT seems to go against the identical principles of Wikipedia. On one hand, we share our study freely, both in terms of access and by using a copyleft license. On the early hand, this NFT takes something that was shared freely and then restricts it so that it can be sold. ” “ I do n’t understand how a Wikimedia regent using Wikimedia websites, Wikimedia brand, and this Wikimedia supported electronic mail tilt to promote a financing event for their own commercial project, i.e. ‘ WT : Social, ’ fits with the bylaw which include : ad
‘ The property of this Foundation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no separate of the web income or assets of this Foundation shall ever inure to the benefit of any Trustee or officer thereof or to the benefit of any private individual other than recompense in a reasonable amount to its officers, employees, and contractors for services rendered. ’ Could person explain why the Wikimedia Foundation gave permission to one of their trustees to do this in dispute of their own bylaw ? Hopefully asking questions does not mechanically get you branded as an ‘ theorist ’ or ‘ attention-seeker. ’ ” The NFT Wales is selling is a web site that allows users to relive the consequence of Wikipedia ’ s creation. The site looks like Wikipedia did in its newcomer moments, and whoever wins the auction can edit it as they will. The second base big controversy among Wikipedia ’ s editors was whether Wales had the right to auction off something like this and if he was even recreating the web site correctly at the consequence of its origin.
Read more: What’s A Die Clash Error Coin?