[WikiEN-l] What's going on? - Inquiry 2

[Thomas Dalton]

> Actually no. I think that on the contrary that case was an example of us
> maturing greatly.
>
> Meanwhile, there is a confidentiality agreement with Carolyn to not
> further comment. Carolyn has the full right of talking to you, but we,
> as an organization, can not give details.
> In the past, there were some questions of how trustworthy the Foundation
> could be with confidential personal data. The Foundation was blamed
> because some private data were supposingly revealed and a couple of
> checkusers preferred to stop being checkusers when we requested them to
> simply give us proof of their real identity, because they feared that
> some spills could occur and their private data could become public.
>
> I find quite amusing that now you are trying to blame us for precisely
> respecting confidentiality :-)

I've seen a few cases recently of people thinking that respecting
privacy requires complete silence. It doesn't. If there is something
you aren't telling people you should tell them that you aren't telling
them and explain why not. If someone leaves for reasons you can't give
then you announce "So-and-so is leaving for undisclosed reasons." or
something.