[Foundation-l] Wikileaks point ? Re: Wikipedia Executive Director?

KIZU Naoko aphaia at gmail.com
Tue Dec 14 13:39:18 UTC 2010

You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Florence Devouard <Anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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
>> sleazy.
>> 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
> Something like
> "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 ?
> Anthere
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子
member of Wikimedians in Kansai  / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp

More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list