[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Executive Director?

[MZMcBride]

Michael Snow wrote:
> On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Calling Jimmy "Wikipedia founder" was already incredibly close to crossing
>> the line. Calling Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director" clearly crosses the
>> line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree.
>> 
>> While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy
>> tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism.
> Which line are you talking about here?

The line between what is and is not acceptable or defensible.

> Crediting Jimmy Wales as a founder of Wikipedia is indisputable.

Check Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales

We should not rehash the "co-founder" vs. "founder" debate again, but I
think it's safe to say that there have been reasonable people who have
objected to the past Jimmy banners using the word "founder."

> Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line as far as accuracy goes,
> but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it sleazy.

Assuming good faith is what Newyorkbrad did when he suggested that it was
simply a typo. There is no reason to assume good faith when you know that
people are intentionally creating banners and landing pages that are wrong.
This is a fairly well established principle on Wikimedia wikis.

> And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal
> behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to
> a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be
> defended against.

K. Peachey did cite both the law and the actions by Wikimedia that he or she
believed to be in violation of it. I'm not sure why you seem to be
suggesting that there is ambiguity here.

In any case, I'm told that the banners are being changed right now, so this
particular issue is likely going to be moot in very short order.

MZMcBride