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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Where are his posts about Veropedia ?
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:

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