[Foundation-l] Discussion Questions for Potentially-Objectionable Content

[Milos Rancic]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:52 AM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
> Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
>
> I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
> ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
> Commons and the Encyclopedias at times and in places, and it's
> inconvenient to have Fox News making a big deal about false claims of
> pedophiles or child porn on Wikipedia when we're trying to be taken
> seriously as a responsible charitable organization, and so forth.
>
> But that does not mean that it's necessarily something the Foundation
> should involve itself in at this point.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. Call me a troll or whatever, but this is
the right question and it deserves the right answer to be repeated.

At May 7th [1] I've already answered that question: "What Jimmy's
sexually impaired super rich friend wish, Jimmy do and then Board
transform into the rule or a statement."

Fortunately, Robert Harris is much more sane. (Thanks, Sue!)

[1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057799.html