In a message dated 3/6/2008 11:33:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu writes:
Danny, do you read my e-mails or just reply to them? I already replied to
you in this thread that Jimmy was synonymous with Bomis, as he was the sole
decisionmaking authority. He said as much *7 years ago*, and it is
undisputed, except by you, who claim that he was not that authority. I've
got evidence. Do you?
Yes.
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Mark Ryan writes:
> I find it a weak argument to imply that
> they take off their Trustee cap and replace it with their Jury Member
> cap. Their presence on the jury is predicated on their being trustees.
You should of course find it a weak argument, since it is not, in
fact, an argument. I confess I have a fairly refined sense of what an
argument is (blame training in formal logic), but I didn't mean to be
understood as offering an argument.
What I was offering was an opinion, based on experience. In my
experience, intelligent individuals have no great trouble keeping
their roles separate (for example, I'm a parent, a teacher, and a
lawyer, and I have no trouble confusing which role I'm playing at any
given time), and, in fact, human beings are pretty good at switching
caps. You may disagree, and I respect your disagreement. But don't
walk away under the impression that I'm either arguing with you or
offering an argument. Believe me, when I am framing an argument, it's
pretty explicitly labelled as such.
--Mike Godwin
Danny Wool writes:
> I don't quite understand. Of 14 jury members, three are on the
> board, two
> are on the advisory board, and Sue is ED (6 total: 42 percent) .
> Others
> represent chapters and community coordination. Can you please
> explain who you mean
> by Wikimedia Foundation.
Sure. I meant the representatives of the Foundation acting in their
official capacities as representatives of the Foundation. In my view,
the Wikimania Jury is analytically distinct, even if some individuals
participate in both entities. This is not a intellectually difficult
distinction in legal circles, but perhaps I should have realized that
it might be problematic for some people who aren't legally trained, so
if I was confusing to you, Danny, I apologize.
What I hoped to have been understood as saying was that it seemed a
category mistake to address a question to me in my official role that
ought properly to be addressed to the members of the Wikimania Jury,
in their roles as members of that jury.
We can discuss category mistakes further, if you like, but I warn you
I'm likely to lapse into Gilbert Ryle terminology at the drop of a hat.
--Mike
In a message dated 3/6/2008 2:12:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org writes:
Please understand that the decision about locating Wikimania was not
made by me or by the Wikimedia Foundation.
_http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Jury_
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2008/Jury)
I don't quite understand. Of 14 jury members, three are on the board, two
are on the advisory board, and Sue is ED (6 total: 42 percent) . Others
represent chapters and community coordination. Can you please explain who you mean
by Wikimedia Foundation.
D
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Marc Riddell writes:
> Thanks, Chad, for your clarification. I am frankly amazed by the
> decision to
> hold the event in Alexandria. Given what has been said about the
> cultural
> and social attitudes toward homosexuality; it would be like having a
> sponsored gathering in 1950s Birmingham, Alabama, and telling the
> African-Americans not to "flaunt their blackness". It is one of the
> most
> insensitive decisions I have heard an institution make in a long time.
I want to be clear about one point -- no one at the Foundation has
urged anyone not to "flaunt" anything at Wikimania.
There is plenty of reason to believe that all sorts of expressions of
affection between men or between women are acceptable public behavior
in Alexandria (as in many other cultures). As I've said, I'm
consulting with a number of sources to obtain good guidelines for all
of us to follow. I hope to have further useful information soon.
--Mike
On 3/6/08, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> As an aside, how is Wikipedia/GFDL and CC-by-SA coming along? Is
> Wikipedia waiting on GFDL and CC-by-SA to work out compatibility?
(CCing foundation-l, since folks there may be interested-)
Creative Commons is working actively with us on the "migration checklist":
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/035677.html
They are internally discussing a draft statement of intent, and
they've updated the CC frontpages to reference the Definition of Free
Cultural Works. Plus, at this point there is a consensus between our
two organizations that CC-BY-SA should function as a "strong copyleft"
license, just not yet about the best way to achieve that.
On the FSF side, we're waiting for a version of the GFDL that has the
migration language in it; hopefully this will be approved soon.
So, things are progressing. Given that there are multiple
organizations involved, plus a commitment from us to only make the
final step after consultation with the community, it's a complex
process, but I'll hope we'll get there soon enough -- the
incompatibility between CC-BY-SA and GFDL is a serious impediment for
the free culture movement.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Marc writes:
> Thank you for this, Mike. I still am, however, puzzled why the
> decision was
> made to hold a major, sponsored event in a place where a sizable
> portion of
> the guests are not welcome; and, in some cases, are treated with
> hostility.
> Is this not condoning bigotry?
Please understand that the decision about locating Wikimania was not
made by me or by the Wikimedia Foundation. It was made by the
Wikimania Jury. I feel certain that questions about that independent
process can be answered better by other participants here rather than
me.
--Mike Godwin
General Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
Delirium writes:
> I agree in general, but these allegations are getting some level of
> credence because it isn't just digital gossip from random people, but
> allegations from the second person hired by the Wikimedia Foundation,
> who was previously highly involved in day-to-day operations, and is
> also
> familiar to many English-Wikipedia editors as the Foundation's former
> point man for WP:OFFICE actions. If it were some random person I doubt
> anyone around here would care. There are also allegedly leaked emails
> from Florence supporting some of the allegations. This doesn't
> necessarily mean any of them are correct, but it's not like they're
> coming from nowhere.
The response I offer above isn't "coming from nowhere" either. Sue is
competent. You shouldn't dismiss her ability to come into an
organization after the fact and draw reasonable inferences about what
did or did not happen. (I should think the popularity of CSI shows
alone should have gotten people used to the idea of forensics.)
At the end of the day, we each of us have decide whether we value
gossip over our other values. I hope most of us make the right
decision.
Furthermore, gossip often doesn't come from "random people." If
you've been in public life long enough, you find that there are some
people who'll say pretty much anything, not because they're random,
but precisely because they *aren't* random, and, so, gossip allows
them to make a splash of some sort. That doesn't make their actions
any less gossip.
The question I routinely ask myself is this: "Is repeating an
unsubstantiated charge improving the world and the things I care
about? Or is it causing agitation without leading to any real
resolution?" Usually the answers are self-evident.
--Mike
Ben McIlwain writes:
> I think we can do without all of the invective over who said what or
> who
> accused whom. Accusing someone of lying is unpleasant, but then so
> too
> is endlessly berating someone over it.
What about trying not to be unpleasant? That seems to me to be an idea
whose time has come.
> The simple fact of the matter is that Sue came onboard long after the
> alleged improprieties.
This is your "simple fact" premise, and this --
> She simply doesn't know everything that happened
> before then.
-- is the logically invalid inference.
What makes it invalid? This: It is nonsense to assume that an
experienced professional, especially one with training in both office
management and journalism, can't come into a situation after the fact
and make reasonable and accurate determinations of what likely
happened before she got there.
In the professional world, such investigations and judgments are made
all the time, and, if the person conducting them is competent, the
conclusions drawn will generally be accurate and reliable. (This is
also routinely done in the legal world, in the accounting world, in
the world of engineering, and so on, but I trust you take my point.)
Sue's competent. You should trust her judgment.
It also strikes me as imprudent to rely on warmed-over digital gossip
rather than on the judgment of an experienced, objective professional
on the ground, but I may be an old-fashioned empiricist about such
matters. More than imprudent at worse -- it can be frivolous and even
destructive of shared culture. I think that is not an optimal outcome.
--Mike