On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
James Rigg writes:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there
are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
Similarly, lots of people use the term "freedom of speech" but are
unwilling to allow other people the freedom to perjure themselves in
court proceedings, commit libel, or conspire to commit a crime. These
means those hypocrites are misusing the term "freedom of speech" of
course. Very dishonest or them, or at least disingenuous.
--Mike
As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post
title and contents - against another contributor to the list isn't
very professional.
People understand that freedom of speech does not mean that someone
has the right to falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema, but people
also understand that calling an organisation transparent, when it is
in fact semi-transparent, is misleading.
James