Just making clear that I only translated for understanding purposes. I do not agree with anything on that text. And I second Yann in his reply.
Best,
Delphine
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 10:21:17 +0100, notafish notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
Please find herewith a revised translation for better understanding.
I posted the following text: "Wikimedia Foundation: the worm in the fruit? At the time of the constituent assembly of the French association Wikimedia France, the subject came up that Jimmy Wales and Wikimedia Foundation would refuse the right to use the trademarks which it held (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Wktionary, Wikibooks...) if the Foundation did not have a right of veto (the term was debated) on the decisions that the French foundation would make. At the same time, during the creation of Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales imposed 3 seats out of 5, and reserved himself the seat of president, the 2 seats remaining being provided by election (what led to 4 anglophone members out of 5). This way of doing things was not to be renewed, and a really democratic election was to take place this year (it is what had been known as at the time). One learns now that Jimmy Wales intends to continue to reserve himself the seat of president, with probably a right of veto on the decisions. A less democratic process appears difficult. The one year delay was thus only one means of drowning fish. This way of doing things should make us ask ourselves certain number of questions:
- What are these foundations used ?
- Don't donators have a right to say something on
the use that is made of the money they gave?
- Isn't it deceiving people to make
believe that the foundation takes care of the interests of Wikipedia, whereas it is only a buttocks-organization, without any real capacity of decision?
- Isnt it deceiving to give the appearance of democracy
when it is not at all democratic?
- What will the community do if
Jimmy Wales makes decisions opposite to the opinion of the majority, as it could be the case on the subject of advertisement (Jimbo never decided clearly against)? To answer "Why don't you just fork?" is slapping the donators in the face Hear me well: I do not have anything against Jimbo, and I would have been the first to vote for him in 2004, and this, as long as he would have been ready to remain president. That would have been only a formality. Today, I would be more circumspect. Of what is Jimbo afraid exactly? Some answered: that a Board would precisely make decisions opposite to the will of the majority. In addition to the fact that it is in complete contradiction with the concept even of democracy, the current system does not put to us with the shelter. Simply, this "privilege" is reserved to only one person. Personally, I intended to rather strongly get involved in the activity of the French association, but now, I am two inches away from forgetting about the whole thing. That would be already done if Wikipédia and the other projects were not in GFDL, which means that they do not belong to the Foundation. Without hostility, I would like to strive to build a collective work, and not to a sort of monument to the glory of Jimmy Wales, whatever his merits may be.