Ray Saintonge wrote:
Selina . wrote:
On 07/06/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
Selina . wrote:
Go to https://sos-res.state.de.us/tin/GINameSearch.jsp and search for "Wikia" and it says it's "NOT IN GOOD STANDING" - I don't know what that
means, but it doesn't sound like a good thing.
Wow, that is just staggeringly dishonest. You do know that people can click on the link and look for themselves, don't you?
What it actually says is: "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING"
Wikia is in good standing, but the point this website is making is that this is not where you look that up.
(Argh it's so annoying that you can't link directly, I tried messing around with the form input but it says "Illegal attempt", lol, talk about Assuming Bad Faith ;)) Sorry, I wasn't being "dishonest" (hey, AGF?) I didn't know the difference, without the explanation it sounds like the meaning's the same ~shrug~ i.e. if the government statement about something is "bad standing" I thought it must be talking about the organisation - my mistake -.-
Bad faith is normally trumped by ignorance, and the kind of misreading described could reasonably fall within the wider framework of ignorance. It is not unusual for people's reading abilities to be inconsistent with what appears in print.
I did get the "illegal attempt" response when I first tried to access the information, and had to restart and accept cookies before I could get the block capitals message that Jimbo quoted. I suppose that Selina also failed to read this boilerplate text: "Additional Information is available for a fee. You can retrieve Status for a fee of $10.00 or more detailed information including current franchise tax assessment, current filing history and more for a fee of $20.00." Did she pay her $10.00?
Fred: Read my other post ("I'm not saying anything bad is going on at all, but there's no way for the public to know if everything's kept secret."), I'm not claiming anything, I misworded that - what I meant is how it COULD be used for Wikia and no one would basically know
However I don't think it's that much of a risk I just was surprised it wasn't as open as I thought it would be, and worried when I read stuff posted on WR which sounded pretty dodgy (that topic I referred to -.-) - I've basically satisfied my curiousity and won't bring it up again, it sounds like the fears of others (I never posted in the topic, but read it..) may just be that, worries :)
In situations of this sort perceptions are more influential than facts. Although it is less important for Wikia decisions, Wikimedia directors who are also Wikia directors, employees or shareholders should declare their conflicts of interest and abstain from voting whenever any matter concerning Wikia comes up to a vote of Wikimedia directors. This will go a long way toward dispelling erroneous perceptions.
Ec
Fully agree.
Note that voting is not the only issue. Simply going to a conference to give a talk about Wikipedia, and talking about the two projects at the same time may lead to unsuitable confusion. Imagine for example that one is talking to a possible sponsor. Will the sponsor independantly choose to fund Wikimedia and/or Wikia ?
ant