-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 22/10/13 10:30 AM, James Salsman wrote:
Thank you, Dimi, this is very helpful.
Government freedom of information and Wikipedia is indicated as top importance, but Jimmy Wales recently indicated that we should not release logs about what IP addresses assigned to specific public agencies have been reading. I am okay with that, but there are other issues recently involving an editor from the EPA responsible for pesticide testing trying to downplay the toxicity of the neonicotinoids, and do I ever have a story to tell you about depleted uranium, but per the following I have become very eventualist about it:
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Gulf-War-and-HealthTreatment-for-Chronic-Mul...
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/Cancer/DoD122.shtml
http://www.smj.org.sa/PDFFiles/May12/Uranium.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1242351/
http://www.marciainhorn.com/olwp/wp-content/uploads/Effect-of-war-on-fertili...
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/10/04/are-scientists-being-muzzled-a-look-at-th...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/oct/13/world-healt...
I would be very interested to learn your thoughts on the top priorities.
Best regards, James Salsman
Wait, what? You're okay with allowing parts of governments to browse/edit privately, but not make this service general to all?
I should think WMF would first allow such functionality to non-government citizens, then NGO/corporates, then government. IMO the government has the least justification for such privacy, and the greatest responsibility for transparency.
Amgine