On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just didn't know about it.
You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption in the real world in the general case (although it is a standard assumption on Wikipediocracy).
I'm not claiming that at all. I am pointing out that there was a lack of public knowledge - and that "corruption" was therefore not eradicable as an option.
And perception of our organisation is one of the problems we need to address.
This problem appears to be one with your perceptions, i.e. that you make a default assumption of massive corruption and then expect the people you're assuming this of to treat your assumption as reasonable.
Not at all; for example, the media have perceived that Roger is a director of WMUK, and that this project is related.
Tom