[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[James Rigg]

I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.

James


On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alex <mrzmanwiki at gmail.com> wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> This 'principle':
>>
>> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
>> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
>> Wikipedia."
>>
>> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
>> Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be
>> a departure from this.
>>
>
> As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by
> common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be
> discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and
> oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects.
>
> The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day
> running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the
> project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages.
>
> --
> Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>