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

[Chad]

I wasn't asking about daily drama, I was asking how assuming that a
troll elsewhere
is a troll here is assuming good faith.

You didn't answer my question.

Chad

On Jan 18, 2008 2:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> I can spend my time only once. I am selective. I do not buy into the daily
> dramas. I do not buy the notion that the WMF will not be there in 10 years.
> I do think and hope it will be different as in better in 10 years time, but
> I am not interested in the prophets of doom who think that the WMF is on the
> point of implosion, this week like last week.. I may be interested when they
> come with well reasoned opinions.
>
> So I have plenty of good faith.. I am just not interested in daily drama.
>
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2008 4:00 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Likely, not always. Just because someone is disruptive somewhere doesn't
> > mean
> > they will be again. What happened to assume good faith?
> >
> > Chad
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2008 5:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>