[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[Nathan]

I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you.


The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any
community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the
community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with
complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion
precursors.

The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern
business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising
model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every
major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of
time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.

When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing
what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response
from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other
corporation in the world.

Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so
hopefully you will now reconsider.

Nathan