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

[Dan Rosenthal]

I find quite a lot of nice things in Danny's blog. Here are a few.

"Wikisource is a wonderful project. It is an opportunity to enhance  
existing Wikipedia articles with older, public domain texts on a wide  
range of topics, including letters, books, and yes, even old  
encyclopedia articles, like the New Student's Reference Work or older,  
public domain editions of the Encyclopedia Britannica. In some cases,  
Wikisource is the only source online for unusual, rare texts,  
including some great contemporary accounts of historical events as  
they happened"

"I am pleased to see the Foundation, in the person of Mike Godwin,  
acting wisely with regard to the Wikicouncil proposal.....At least  
someone is asking the right questions. Thank you."

"A lot of people have asked me privately what I think of the recent  
grant that the WMF has received from the Sloan Foundation. Some were  
probably expecting some snide comment or devious conspiracy, but I  
have none. Actually, I think it is a fine thing and it opens up some  
great opportunities for the WMF. So kudos to everyone involved (and  
yes, that even means you, Erik)."

As well, he has quite a few posts regarding his time in Israel,  
favorite works of poetry, etc. But don't let the facts get in the way  
of your dislike for Danny.

-Dan

On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l