[Foundation-l] Wikileaks point ? Re: Wikipedia Executive Director?
Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 14 08:22:18 UTC 2010
On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, 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? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a
> founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to
> claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on
> the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes
> any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does
> - but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to
> Sue as "Wikipedia Executive Director", I find it inaccurate and
> confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process
> to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at
> communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our
> organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line
> as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it
> 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. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons
> various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil
> libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate
> tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so.
> --Michael Snow
Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin
point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a
"Wikileaks point" appears
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to
Wikileaks approaches 1" to refer to the chance of ending up discussing
censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate.
What do you think ?
More information about the wikimedia-l