Hoi,
If you want examples of what I would describe as disparagment, read the blog
of Danny Wool. He has little to say for himself, it is typically about
others and he does not find it in himself to say anything nice.
It would be cool if Danny turned that page and started to write about
Veropedia in stead. In my opinion the value of his project weakens as a
result of his constant sniping. I liked what Larry Sanger said about the
"Tegenlicht" program that he was in.. he liked the program but it was only
about Wikipedia and nothig was included about Citizendium. I can understand
this from an editorial point of view. I appreciated Larry for saying it
because Citizendium is at least an attempt to improve on Wikipedia, it is at
least a positive attitude.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
When you are part of the board, you can and you should be able to say
the
harshest things. This is expected of a board
member. A non
disparagement
agreement is meant to keep the noise down when
the words are spoken
outside
of the environment. It does help both a persons
personal standing and
the
standing of the board when people can find it in
themselves to be
polite and
political in how they express themselves.
I doubt how much (legal) value can or should be given to such a
document, it
is certainly a great way to point out that a
person who is in violation
of
such an agreement is indeed the arse hole that
this behaviour
demonstrates.
*Terms of disparagement* are pejorative words and phrases which are
either
intended to be or are often regarded as
insulting, impolite or unkind.
Given the definition it is bad behaviour in the first place.. Now what
is
the problem in stating that you will not behave
in an objectionable way
in
the first place ??
I guess it all depends on exactly what is meant by "disparaging". I
expect the actual agreement was rather more precise than the title.
I'm not sure I quite agree with your definition of disparaging (in
some contexts). The appropriate definition for Wiktionary says:
"To dishonor by a comparison with what is inferior; to lower in rank
or estimation by actions or words; to speak slightingly of; to
depreciate; to undervalue."
If someone is doing something seriously wrong, it would seem
acceptable to me to depreciate them. Whether or not something is
pejorative is extremely subjective. For example, on a Wikipedia talk
page some people told me off for describing someone (primarily a
hypothetical someone, although there were people in the discussion
that I could have meant) as "ignorant". I meant that simply to say
that they lacked the knowledge relevant to the point at hand. As far
as I'm concerned, that's what the word means and I didn't mean it
offensively. Other people, quite understandably, interpreted it
differently. I think it's fair to say I was disparaging them, but
whether or not I was being objectionable depends on who you ask.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l