Oh dear god everyone... [This is in general, not any specific person]
I think everyone knows there are a lot of legitimate concerns to be
concerned about and certainly Arnnon's actions at Google are legitimate for
question however this whole "google is controlling the board/wmf" line of
thought is turning into a huge and enormous conspiracy theory and what
seems to be a giant school of red herring
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring>. We haven't quite yet gotten to
"Frieda has 6 letters in her name and you know what else has 6 letters in
it's name? GOOGLE!" but we're getting damn close. If anything the only
concern about google I've heard within the actual WMF is that the
"Knowledge Engine" was a plan to 'compete' against google for traffic
the record my personal opinion is that would be a waste of money on
something we could never succeed if true but ALSO that it isn't actually
true at all at this point).
There are a lot of people with legitimate and understandable concerns (in
many ways I wish I could take part in the discussion but there is just no
good way to do that) but please let's try to keep the lines of thought as
sane as possible (which I know is the norm for all of you so I know it's
possible). When people get worked up and there is a lack of information our
imagination can always get the best of us, I certainly understand that, but
it is rarely helpful.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10 January 2016 at 09:53, Yaroslav M. Blanter
On 2016-01-10 10:49, Lilburne wrote:
Meanwhile one knows that a Google appointed board
member objected to
presence at a meeting where they were most likely to be finalizing the
of another from the Googleplex, who is a little tarnished.
Would you please remain
civil. We do not have a Google appointed board
member, nor the bylaws provide a possibility for Google to appoint a
member. If you mean Denny, he was not Google
appointed, but community
elected, which makes a big difference. I, for one, voted for him.
Literally speaking, Denny was appointed by Google to Google, so
"Google appointed board member" is not untrue, though "board member on
Google's payroll" would be less confusing.
As for a member of the "Googleplex" who is "a little tarnished",
that's a mild way of putting the facts about illegal activities of
major public interest, very polite even.
To help debunk conspiracy theorists, it would be interesting to find
out how many of the board of trustees have shares in Google, a useful
way of finding out who is part of the Googleplex. Presumably current
and past employees would have taken their stock options. Is that
possible to discover from the public record in the USA?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org