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