On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg <jamesrigg1974(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly
portrayed to the
general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as transparent
and non-hierarchical. Some of that is Wikimedia's PR, a lot of that is just
public perception. Most people look at the claim of transparency and
non-hierarchical and presume it to mean within the boundaries of reason. If
you're not willing to make that jump, then no amount of people telling you
that they made it will help. And I expect that you'll be similarly
disappointed by many other products and organizations that don't explicitly
add the caveat of reasonability to their attributes.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just
have to agree to disagree!
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins <parkerhiggins(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I think there's two parallel conversations
going on here, which is making
it
hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses
absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those
virtues
to the boundaries of common sense. That
difference, between the absolute
and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to
run
an organization in a manner consistent with
common sense, and that
realities
of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds
with the founding
principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully
acknowledged,
but I don't think it's a very strong
point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the
extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's
commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has
decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely
transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody
realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely
transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality,
it
doesn't really make sense to complain about
that. And it doesn't
represent
a deviation from founding principles.
Best,
parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg
<jamesrigg1974(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
> I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
> Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those
> principles".
>
> I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency,
> and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the
> *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
>
> Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing
> in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
>
> James
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
> statements
> > of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion
-
> the
> > conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't
live
> up
> > to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't
shock
> you.
> >
> >
> > The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any
> > community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
> lists
> > that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to
the
> > community. Nearly all decision making of
any weight is done on-wiki,
with
> > complete access for anyone who wants it
to all or mostly all
discussion
> > precursors.
> >
> > The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern
> > business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
> plans,
> > its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund
raising
> > model and its long term goals are all
available for your discovery.
Every
> > major decision that impacts the projects
is discussed publicly ahead
of
> > time. That *is* transparency, in my
opinion.
> >
> > When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
> working
> > on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list
describing
> > what he believes to be a material
mischaracterisation, he gets a
response
> > from the founder and the deputy director
(and former board member) in
> short
> > order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any
other
> > corporation in the world.
> >
> > Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so
> > hopefully you will now reconsider.
> >
> > Nathan
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l