[Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation's partnership with Kaltuna and loss of freedom

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It may not have a basis in fact. However, when a person comes along
condemning the WMF, and being accused of being disruptive in other projects
I do not have to spend *my *time on him or on his arguments. When the guy is
more moderate in his language I may read him next time.

There is no excuse for trashing or trolling other peoples projects. There is
no excuse for someone from one WMF project to troll on other WMF projects
either. The notion that someone should be given a safe haven because he can
be constructive on any particular wiki is likely to be for as long as such a
project conforms to his ideas.. When people are disruptive elsewhere and use
unacceptable means, they are likely to become disruptive when things happen
that they do not like. Alternatively, they grow up.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 18, 2008 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:

> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 17/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The two are completely unrelated. So long as he behaves himself around
> >> here, It doesnt matter what he does elsewhere.
> >>
> > Of course it does. We're not in this to dish out justice, we're here
> > to generate and distribute free content. Someone who is disruptive
> > elsewhere is likely to be disruptive here and hinder us in achieving
> > our goals, so we should treat them pretty much the same as we treat
> > people who have already been disruptive here. It's important to be
> > mindful of the details - in some cases, there might be something more
> > going on than simple vandalism (I don't know the details of this
> > case), but I see see no problem in using all the information we have
> > at our disposal in making decisions.
> This view is inconsistent with your other post about a steward taking
> action on Wikibooks for a ban on Wikipedia.  Although I would still
> strongly disagree with that steward's action it remains relatively more
> defensible when two sister projects are involved, than when the supposed
> bad behaviour took place on a completely unrelated site.  We certainly
> have no time to go into detailed analysis of activity on other sites to
> find out if the accusations are justified.  Your presumption that a
> person who is disruptive on another site would be disruptive here has no
> basis in fact.
>
> True as it may be that we're not here to dish out justice, that
> statement confuses ands and means. The free content is about ends, and
> to whatever extent justice is relevant it is about means.  If we are not
> here to dish out justice that applies equally to the head and tail of
> justice.  Debates about whether someone's treatment is just is about the
> head of justice.  Meting out punishments that may have been prescribed
> elsewhere is about dishing out the tail of justice.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>