[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[James Rigg]

Thanks geni.

So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?

Best

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com>:
>> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
>> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
>> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
>> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
>
> Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about
> libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.
>
> No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we
> can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.
>
>>
>> I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia
>> was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium
>> has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the
>> case.
>>
>> All best wishes
>>
>> James
>
> Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have
> any more right to edit any given article than any other but some
> newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to
> be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to
> stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.
>
>
> --
> geni
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>