Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on
public goodwill try to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect,
and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum
at this list?
In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that even
appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging to
nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill?
I'm not alleging that any actual impropriety took place, and I believe
Erik's explanations. But that's only because I know several of the board
members and believe they have Wikimedia's best interests in mind---heck,
I recall publicly campaigning for Erik's election to the board some time
Most people, however, neither know the board nor have any particularly
great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other
organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the
explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in
the newspaper if they were a bit skeptical. That seems like it'll
inevitably be damaging from a PR and fundraising perspective. I believe
Erik's explanation of the space's benefits, I just think the Board is
underestimating the negative effects to the Foundation's reputation.