[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
If you want examples of what I would describe as disparagment, read the blog
of Danny Wool. He has little to say for himself, it is typically about
others and he does not find it in himself to say anything nice.

It would be cool if Danny turned that page and started to write about
Veropedia in stead. In my opinion the value of his project weakens as a
result of his constant sniping. I liked what Larry Sanger said about the
"Tegenlicht" program that he was in.. he liked the program but it was only
about Wikipedia and nothig was included about Citizendium. I can understand
this from an editorial point of view. I appreciated Larry for saying it
because Citizendium is at least an attempt to improve on Wikipedia, it is at
least a positive attitude.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> >  When you are part of the board, you can and you should be able to say
> the
> >  harshest things. This is expected of a board member. A non
> disparagement
> >  agreement is meant to keep the noise down when the words are spoken
> outside
> >  of the environment. It does help both a persons personal standing and
> the
> >  standing of the board when people can find it in themselves to be
> polite and
> >  political in how they express themselves.
> >
> >  I doubt how much (legal) value can or should be given to such a
> document, it
> >  is certainly a great way to point out that a person who is in violation
> of
> >  such an agreement is indeed the arse hole that this behaviour
> demonstrates.
> >
> >  *Terms of disparagement* are pejorative words and phrases which are
> either
> >  intended to be or are often regarded as insulting, impolite or unkind.
> >
> >  Given the definition it is bad behaviour in the first place.. Now what
> is
> >  the problem in stating that you will not behave in an objectionable way
> in
> >  the first place ??
>
> I guess it all depends on exactly what is meant by "disparaging". I
> expect the actual agreement was rather more precise than the title.
> I'm not sure I quite agree with your definition of disparaging (in
> some contexts). The appropriate definition for Wiktionary says:
>
> "To dishonor by a comparison with what is inferior; to lower in rank
> or estimation by actions or words; to speak slightingly of; to
> depreciate; to undervalue."
>
> If someone is doing something seriously wrong, it would seem
> acceptable to me to depreciate them. Whether or not something is
> pejorative is extremely subjective. For example, on a Wikipedia talk
> page some people told me off for describing someone (primarily a
> hypothetical someone, although there were people in the discussion
> that I could have meant) as "ignorant". I meant that simply to say
> that they lacked the knowledge relevant to the point at hand. As far
> as I'm concerned, that's what the word means and I didn't mean it
> offensively. Other people, quite understandably, interpreted it
> differently. I think it's fair to say I was disparaging them, but
> whether or not I was being objectionable depends on who you ask.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>