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.
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