So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg
I don't understand why discussing everything
openly is 'beyond
nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about
libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.
No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we
can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.
I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia
was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium
has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the
All best wishes
Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have
any more right to edit any given article than any other but some
newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to
be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to
stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.
foundation-l mailing list