[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[James Rigg]

But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the
general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
semi-transparent and hierarchical.

Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just
have to agree to disagree!

James



On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins <parkerhiggins at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it
> hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
>
> James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses
> absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues
> to the boundaries of common sense.  That difference, between the absolute
> and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
>
> Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run
> an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities
> of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding
> principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
>
> I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged,
> but I don't think it's a very strong point.  Perhaps the phrase, "to the
> extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's
> commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has
> decreased the overall clarity.  Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely
> transparent, and yes, I know you know that.  But considering that nobody
> realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely
> transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it
> doesn't really make sense to complain about that.  And it doesn't represent
> a deviation from founding principles.
>
> Best,
> parker
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg
> <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
>> Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those
>> principles".
>>
>> I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency,
>> and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the
>> *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
>>
>> Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing
>> in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
>>
>> James
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > foundation-l mailing list
>> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>