Thomas Dalton writes:
> If you consider all (personal) criticism to be an
> attack, then clearly you're going to have a problem with it.
It's not really a matter of what I consider to be a personal criticism
or a personal attack. I think it's really a matter of what the Board
members judge to be a personal criticism or attack, and they are the
ones who ultimately will interpret this provision. That said, I think
it is entirely possible to criticize someone's actions without
attacking their character (for example). The notion that the only way
to express disagreement with someone is to criticize them personally
seems to me to be dead certain to lead to personal animosity.
> (really, I struggle to see how you can
> criticise anything other than a person or group of people -
> criticising what they do, rather than them, is just semantics).
This doesn't strike me as a struggle, and I disagree that this is just
semantics. I certainly know how to express disagreement without
personally criticizing someone, and I think this posting of mine
actually stands as a demonstration of how to do this.
--Mike
Hello,
Some time ago, the board received a new draft of its future "board
statement of responsibility".
This follows the document presented to the board in April, which was
opposed by Kat and I.
I prefer not to comment on it for now, but I would most strongly advise
that you actually read that document and comment on it. I read with
attention your feedback regarding the changes of the bylaws a few weeks
ago and your unhappiness regarding the fact you were not asked to
provide your input.
I think the potential consequences of this document would actually far
exceed the consequences of the bylaws changes, because the document
represent the statement of agreement which would exist between the
organization and individual board members.
In particularly, it includes
* a non-disparagement agreement (with widely different appreciations on
what disparagement is)
* a very much extended conflict of interest agreement, which would
require a board member to get authorization to do certain activities (as
opposed to merely informing the board and not voting on resolutions when
there is a perceived or real conflict)
It does not include
* a statement of understanding from the board member, regarding mission
and values
Your feedback is welcome, on these three points, or others (present or
missing). I would like in particular to read opinions of candidates to
the board on such matters.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Statement
Best
Florence
/* Sorry for resending: Stupid me, I thought the Cyrillic URL was
* the problem, but apparently it was the line starting with
* "From" that Pipermail couldn't handle.
*/
Surprisingly long, Swedish has held the 10th place among the
largest languages of Wikipedia. Swedish is spoken by only 9
million people and the following two places are held by Russian
and Chinese.
Some say the high rank is held in part because of many very short
articles: stubs and even "substubs". This is true, but the high
ranking of some languages (including Polish and Dutch) in this
first decade of Wikipedia is rather to be explained by the late
coming of the major languages. Arabic is still trailing at 31.
Swedish has been falling from 6th to its current 10th place.
All of April, the Swedish Wikipedia has been active with merging
"substubs" into larger units. As a result, the over all size of
the Swedish Wikipedia has been flat around 282,000 articles, while
the Russian Wikipedia has continued to grow at a healthy pace.
The difference in size is now only 5000 articles. Any day or week
soon, Russian will capture the 10th place. This will be a great
event, but what about the timing?
The Russian wikipedians already missed the 200th anniversary of
the conquest of Sveaborg (May 3, 1808). I don't think they will
time today's final in the ice hockey world championships. But I
also think they will be too early for the 299th anniversary of the
battle of Poltava (July 8, 1709). So we will have to find some
other way to mark the Russian victory for a place around the
puzzle globe (http://www.wikipedia.org/).
As part of WikiProject Sweden (Википедия:Проект:Швеция), they
started yesterday a subpage "Swedish Week" (Шведская неделя). The
idea is to fill these last days of Swedish dominance with writing
new articles about Sweden. Yesterday, Saturday May 17, was
Norway's independence day but this didn't stop the Russians from
creating an article about the National holiday of Sweden, as well
as 50 other new articles pertaining to Sweden.
_From a Swedish perspective, this isn't too bad. To quote ABBA:
"I feel like I win, when I lose" (Waterloo, 1974).
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Проект:Швеция/Шведская_неделя
The surrender of Sveaborg ([[Suomenlinna]]) fortress at Helsinki
in 1808 and the [[battle of Poltava]] in the Ukraine in 1709 are
the two most famous Swedish military losses to Russia. A Russian
expression for helplessness is "like a Swede at Poltava", but this
is not at all how I feel today.
Still, I had hoped that this year's ice hockey championships,
played in Quebec ([[2008 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships]]),
would provide retaliation, but yesterday Sweden lost out at 4th
place without medals and Russia is playing the final today against
Canada in just a few hours.
It is surprising how well hockey-playing nations (Russia, Finland,
Sweden, Norway, Canada, USA, Germany, Poland, Czech Replublic) are
doing in Wikipedia. Maybe this is what the Arabs should try.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
from the wikileaks mailing list
regards
mark
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wikileaks Press Release <press(a)wikileaks.org>
Date: Sat, May 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Subject: [WL-News] Wikimedia Foundation in danger of losing immunity under
the Communications Decency Act
To: newsmarkie(a)gmail.com
Cc: Wikileaks News Releases <news(a)lists.sunshinepress.org>
Wikileaks Press Release
Sat May 17 14:09:38 GMT 2008
Wikileaks has revealed that the Wikimedia Foundation Board (which legally
controls Wikipedia.org and Wikinews.org) has killed off a Wikinews report
into the Barabara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation case.
Wikinews.org is a collaborative general news site that often produces
quality original reportage and is meant to be editorially independent from
the WMF.
The WMF board also suppressed, prior to publication, a Wikinews
investigation into child and other pornography on Wikipedia, which was
subsequently and independently covered by Valley Wag and other media outlets
this week.
The US Communications Deceny Act (CDA) section 230 grants providers of
internet services (such as the Wikipedia and Wikinews) immunity from legal
action related to their user generated content provided they do not exercise
pre-publication control.
In deleting articles articles unfavourable to the WMF prior to publication,
Wikileaks states that the WMF control of Wikinews not only appears to lack
journalistic integrity but that "The Wikimedia Foundation may have set a
dangerous precedent that could see it lose its CDA section 230 immunity."
The EFF and Sheppard Mullin are using CDA section 230 as the primary defense
of the WMF in the Barbara Bauer defamation case.
WikiLeaks is an international union of organizations and individuals and is
unrelated to the WMF.
Links:
*
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_article_on_Barbara_Bauer_vs._…
*
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikinews_suppressed_Wikipedia_pornography_investi…
* EFF and Sheppard Mullin Defend Wikipedia in Defamation Case
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/05/02
_______________________________________________
News mailing list
News(a)lists.sunshinepress.org
https://lists.wikileaks.org/mailman/listinfo/newshttp://wikileaks.be/wiki/Contact
Anthony writes:
>> I think perhaps I wasn't clear -- nondisparagement is not the same
>> thing as honoring confidentiality (although there may be overlap).
>> What we want to do is give good people the maximum incentive (a) to
>> become contributing members of the Board of Trustees, (b) to be
>> critical of Foundation operations and policies while serving as a
>> Board member, and (c) not to be "chilled" from fully contributing out
>> of concern that disagreement will lead to being personally attacked
>> by
>> other Board members.
>>
> I'd say you're going about that all wrong, then.
Thanks for your help.
> I'd agree, for some definition of "personal attacks". But then, I'm
> still not sure a contractual agreement is a good way to ensure such
> "personal attacks" are avoided. Maybe if you can come up with a good
> objective definition of "personal attacks" I could be convinced to
> change my mind. But even then I'm not sure.
I think the Board is capable of reaching a consensus about what
constitutes the sort of personal attack or personal criticism out to
be out-of-bounds. Like all general statements of principle (see,
e.g., the U.S. Constitution or the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights), the provisions of this Statement will be determined by the
Board in application.
Ray writes:
>> It's more that the definition of "Trustee" is nuanced -- it means
>> someone who can be trusted to act wisely and in a beneficial way.
>>
> If they are so trusted then the proposed document is redundant.
I think you misunderstood the sentence you are commenting on. The
idea is that by meeting the Board obligations and responsibilities, a
Board member lives up to the meaning of "Trustee."
> Sure but the proposed agreement won't help with that. Those who know
> how to behave will continue to behave well. Those who don't know
> how to
> behave can't be stopped.
If what you say here is correct, it is amazing that civilization even
exists. :)
> The agreement may be grounds for dismissal
> from the Board, but beyond that it's completely unenforceable.
Right.
> I'm afraid that the effect will be quite the opposite. That such a
> document would be necessary in the first place suggests that a highly
> distrustful environment already exists on the Board.
Considering that the Board asked for the development of a
comprehensive draft, by consensus, I don't follow your reasoning.
> When you
> emphasize the inclusion of the word "personally" three times I
> suspect a
> certain level of equivocation.
Your suspicion is misplaced. The focus on "personally" is to ensure
that other kinds of criticism are understood to be allowed and even
encouraged.
> The proposal says what it says, and it
> seems like the sort of word which in a legal confrontation could be
> interpreted by both plaintiff and defence to suit their own respective
> purposes.
Is there any artifact of human language about which this cannot be said?
--Mike
Lodewijk about Florence:
quote
But *please* leave it up to her and her alone whether she wants to run for
re-election, let's not decide that for her please. (I personally hope she
will,
it will be very hard to find a replacement just as good I think)
unquote
It was about time that somebody said that. Florence, you did and do a
tremendous job and should be proud of yourself. You always showed your
commitment to act as representative of the community and willingness to be
held responsible by the community. If you ask for input by the community, as
you did so often, and someone questions your sincerity in this, I find that
very sad.
There are more things important in life than being an exemplary and widely
appreciated leader of a world movement. So I respect any choice you make.
But know that you will be missed.
Erik Zachte
SJ writes:
> I am curious about the extension of this clause to all affiliates
> and their
> top tier of staff... That also seems like it's quite strong, but
> perhaps
> the definition of 'affiliate' is similarly nuanced? SJ
It's more that the definition of "Trustee" is nuanced -- it means
someone who can be trusted to act wisely and in a beneficial way.
If a Board member chose, for example, to say something personally
derogatory about Florence (for example) to the chapters, that not only
damages Florence, but also the Foundation's relationship with the
chapters. It turns out to be better for everyone if Board members
believe their obligation is to frame their criticisms constructively
rather than as personal attacks.
Anthony writes:
> There's a huge difference between revealing confidential information
> about a former client and personally criticizing a director, trustee,
> or senior officer of that former client.
I think perhaps I wasn't clear -- nondisparagement is not the same
thing as honoring confidentiality (although there may be overlap).
What we want to do is give good people the maximum incentive (a) to
become contributing members of the Board of Trustees, (b) to be
critical of Foundation operations and policies while serving as a
Board member, and (c) not to be "chilled" from fully contributing out
of concern that disagreement will lead to being personally attacked by
other Board members.
> But the way I see it the fiduciary duties and ethics obligations of a
> board member include the obligation to speak out against certain
> individuals in certain situations, and therefore I would find it
> unethical to sign an agreement promising not to speak out should those
> certain situations arise.
I think there are other ways to express disagreement besides engaging
in personal attacks, and I further believe that avoiding personal
attacks not only serves fiduciary and ethical obligations better but
also creates an atmosphere in which more people feel free to be
critical in constructive ways.
--Mike
Thomas Dalton writes:
>> "Trustees agree that that, during their terms on the Board and for
>> three years thereafter, they shall not, in any communications with
>> the
>> press or other media or any customer, client or supplier of the
>> Foundation, or any of the Foundation's affiliates, or in discussions
>> on community mailing lists, blogs, or other community forums,
>> personally criticize, ridicule or make any statement that personally
>> disparages or is personally derogatory of the Foundation or its
>> affiliates or any of their respective directors, trustees, or senior
>> officers."
>>
>> That explicitly bans all public criticism.
That is untrue. Note the use of the word "personally" (it appears
three times). The idea here is actually to *encourage constructive
criticism outside of personal attacks*. The idea here is not to make
someone who is selected for the Board the victim of personal attacks
from other members of the Board during their term of service and for a
limited period thereafter.
If this guarantee is in place, one result is properly that everyone on
the Board will feel free to criticize Board or staff operations,
programs, and initiatives without being the object of personal
attacks, at least from within the Board or staff, for doing so.
What's more, the obligation has a definite time limit -- if you're a
Board member and you want to write a tell-all book about what a
terrible person another Board member is, you can do so, but you have
to wait a while before selling your gossip. So, in short, you can be
constructively critical regardless of this provision, and you then can
engage in personal attacks after a a decent interval.
I should add that my own obligations as an attorney for the Foundation
actually exceed those imposed on the Board. I don't find my attorney-
client obligations particularly onerous, and I feel free to give the
Board and staff my critical advice, even though I'm generally
ethically barred from writing a tell-all book about their
personalities or posting personal criticisms on Foundation-l.
(Believe me when I tell you that the gossip is less interesting than
you probably imagine.) In my view, Board members are holding fiduciary
positions -- positions of trust -- so they have legal and ethical
obligations that in some ways are similar to attorney-client privilege
and even similar to physician-patient privilege (as Hippocrates
stated, one must first do no harm).
Now, you may believe it ought to be appropriate for Board members to
attack each other personally, to attack the staff, and to attack you,
but I hold them and myself to a higher standard, and I don't think
it's unreasonable to set expectations for mature, considered behavior
that extends to constructive criticism but stops short of destructive
conflict.
Is it your belief, Thomas, that as a lawyer working for the Foundation
I ought to be able to issue public personal attacks on Florence,
Jimmy, Kat, Domas, Stuart, Frieda, and Jan-Bart?
--Mike
Anthony writes:
> Are you really barred from all personal criticism of the Foundation or
> its members *for a period of three (or more) years following your
> departure*, merely by being an attorney?
I'm barred from doing so for far longer than three years.
Essentially, it's an obligation forever. (There are some exceptions
under the legal codes of ethics, but they're very narrow -- e.g., you
get to criticize a former client if there's a fee dispute.)
I would be a very poor lawyer indeed if you, as a client or employer,
couldn't trust me not to use your conversations with me against you
someday.
The obligations of Board members, who have access to lots of
confidential information, are similar, although less onerous, even
under the proposed draft document.
In any case, you won't catch me complaining about my ethical
obligations -- to me they are so obviously constructive and conducive
to criticism and robust discussion that I see them as an unalloyed
benefit and not as a burden. But, then, my view is shaped by the fact
I've been involved in public-interest corporate entities for almost 30
years, and I've had a long time to observe how organizations work when
board members treat one another well, and how they don't work when
board members seek to damage one another or the staff or the
enterprise or the community.
> I don't think that's true,
> but even if it is, you get paid for this. The board members, on the
> other hand, don't get paid anything.
Being paid has nothing to do with it. Even if I were unpaid, these
obligations would apply to me. They're a function of my profession,
and not of any employment agreement.
I think one of the things that is often hard for some people to accept
is that with authority comes responsibility. (This is one of the
things you have to learn if you want to be a good lawyer.) I know that
some people would like to have a Board or staff position that allows
them to do anything they want and never to have any obligation to
treat anyone else humanely. To me that's an irresponsible position.
If I were seeking election to the Board of Trustees, or to any board
of any corporation, I would take my responsibilities as a board member
seriously, including its fiduciary duties, and including its ethics
obligations. I think it is quite possible to be critical in
constructive ways about the Foundation and its projects without trying
to damage other people. I'm saddened to hear that some people disagree.
--Mike
Well is there sufficent support for a Declaration that the Community wants governance?
----- Original Message ----
From: Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:51:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
By that logic, the Foundation could not hold Board elections, discuss on
the mailing lists, or conduct the fundraiser, as it involves being "involved in
the community." This is different from being involved in the editorial model
of Wikipedia, which they are not.
-Chad
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> The community creates content. If the Foundation is involved in the community, they are indirectly involved in content.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 4:23:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
>
>
> Incorrect. If the Foundation get involved in /content/. There's a
> distinct difference
> between not being involved in content and not being involved in the community.
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If the foundation gets involved in community issues, they aren't an ISP under Section 230
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> > Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 12:47:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community Assembly
> >
> >
> > On 12/05/2008, Geoffrey Plourde <geo.plrd(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Meta is a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. If the remit is increased, Section 230 immunity goes to the birds.
> >
> > Meta is a website run by the WMF. Section 230 is specifically about
> > making people that run websites not be liable for the actions of their
> > users. You're not making any sense...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ