I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles.
Best, parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion -
the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live
up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock
you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in
short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l