[Foundation-l] transparency or translucency?

[Parker Higgins]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg <jamesrigg1974 at googlemail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

Right.  Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as transparent
and non-hierarchical.  Some of that is Wikimedia's PR, a lot of that is just
public perception.  Most people look at the claim of transparency and
non-hierarchical and presume it to mean within the boundaries of reason.  If
you're not willing to make that jump, then no amount of people telling you
that they made it will help.  And I expect that you'll be similarly
disappointed by many other products and organizations that don't explicitly
add the caveat of reasonability to their attributes.



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


And perhaps this is the best solution!

Best,
Parker

>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>