You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Florence Devouard Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
Calling Jimmy "Wikipedia founder" was already incredibly close to crossing the line. Calling Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director" clearly crosses the line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree.
While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism.
Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does
- but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to
Sue as "Wikipedia Executive Director", I find it inaccurate and confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy.
And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so.
--Michael Snow
Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a "Wikileaks point" appears
Something like
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Wikileaks approaches 1" to refer to the chance of ending up discussing censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate.
What do you think ?
Anthere
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l