[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[James Rigg]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia <sfmammamia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
> <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> 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,
>
> The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your
> original post is that you seem to  conflate "the Foundation" with
> "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about
> the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.
>
> People here have given you several examples of the types of
> Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think
> the point has been well-made that there are certain types of
> information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the
> Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the
> Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters
> private and confidential.  I thought you accepted those examples.
>
> How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a
> separate matter.  Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an
> arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.
>
> Teresa
>
> _______________________________________________

Please see my previous reply to David Gerard.

Also, people here have equally given me examples of how *Wikipedia* is
run in a non-transparent way that they are *not*happy about.