From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Ray Saintonge
Peter Mackay wrote:
Puddl Duk
wrote:
I would support this idea as long as the mailing
list
archives were public.
What would be the point of having an admin-only mailing list then?
Reading and posting are two different activities. Without wishing to
stoke outrageous egos, a comparison could be drawn with Hansard
reporting of Parliament. There are strict limits on who is
eligible to
speak, but none whatsoever on who may listen to
them, or
read the published record.
That kind of availability is key to
transparency and accountability.
That's my point.
Nevertheless, I am confident that the reasewrship
level would
be just as stunningly high as it is for Hansard (or the
Congressional Record in the US).
Oh, I agree fully! Debates on policy can be most nit-pickingly tiresome (to
use Fred's word) and I wouldn't expect WP to be any different.
But if we want editors to have an effective and informed vote at ArbCom
elections, then transparency is a must. Like Hansard (or the ConRec) this
protects not just the voting public, but the legislators themselves.
Otherwise, with such a large group, there are bound to be leaks, and some of
those leaks might be incorrect, or given out of context. Human nature being
what it is.
Is there any good argument for secret discussions?