Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
Everyone (including in the recent board
statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel
admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or
that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.
It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements.
It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as
underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me,
approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would
certainly be an "aha" moment).
It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read
it, before asserting bad faith?
The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The
Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think
they're soft-pedaling this.
- d.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l