James Rigg writes:
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.
Please. I try to use my sarcasm professionally!
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.
It's only misleading if one chooses to understand "transparency" in the naive way that some might choose to understand "freedom of speech."
--Mike
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
It's only misleading if one chooses to understand "transparency" in the naive way that some might choose to understand "freedom of speech."
It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and the term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this conversation before, and you don't agree with the first of those two sentences?
2009/1/11 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and the term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this conversation before, and you don't agree with the first of those two sentences?
You've already stated you don't contribute any more and haven't for a couple of years. What is your purpose for being on this list?
- d.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and
the
term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this conversation
before,
and you don't agree with the first of those two sentences?
You've already stated you don't contribute any more and haven't for a couple of years. What is your purpose for being on this list?
My purpose is to learn. What's yours?
2009/1/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and
the
term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this conversation
before,
and you don't agree with the first of those two sentences?
You've already stated you don't contribute any more and haven't for a couple of years. What is your purpose for being on this list?
My purpose is to learn. What's yours?
To actually work for the benefit of the projects. Your appears indistinguishable from trolling.
- d.
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:24 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/12 Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
My purpose is to learn. What's yours?
To actually work for the benefit of the projects.
To benefit them in what way? By ignoring all the problems and pretending everything is always perfect?
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org