[Foundation-l] On the cost of explaining things.

[Jimmy Wales]

Erik Moeller wrote:
> The fundamentally destructive nature of the leaks that have happened
> recently is not the actual information itself, it's that the people
> who have forwarded information from private lists without permission
> have engaged in no attempt at an actual dialog with the Foundation
> about when & whether the information they have leaked could be
> legitimately published. That makes these actions appear purely
> self-interested, ill-considered, or hostile, and will drive towards
> less internal transparency, not more, as truly sensitive information
> can no longer be posted to larger groups of people.

There is a great irony in this.  The best thing to do, if someone has 
private information that they think should be made public is... ask! 
The answer is likely to be "yes" unless there's a really good reason, 
and unless we have a discussion about it, who can know?

Assume Good Faith is a really important principle here.  There are 
people (conspiracy mongers) who have been claiming something that I 
think is quite contrary to fact... the idea that the Foundation is 
secretive is just silly.

I said this a few days ago, but I think it bears repeating.  I have been 
on the boards of nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations, 
and worked in various organizations throughout my career, and I have 
never seen an organization as nearly-pathologically transparent as the 
Wikimedia Foundation.

Greg, who I respect very much, and who I do *not* count among the 
conspiracy mongers, said this:
 >These days it seems many users learn more about Wikimedia from leaks
 >and reporters than they do through the official channels. Does that
 >form of communication actually turn out to be less costly?

I do not think this is accurate.

--Jimbo