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

Florence Devouard Anthere9 at yahoo.com
Tue Dec 14 23:55:49 UTC 2010

On 12/14/10 2:39 PM, KIZU Naoko wrote:
> You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable.

Haha, no. It is far too similar to Godwin Law. It would be plagiarism

But I stand up by my claim. I would be curious to see how it evolves.
Any mention of censorship ---> reference to Wikileaks


> 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

More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list