+1 to that question, which is the biggest flag I have here.
"The highest standards of confidentiality" is nice but, as you note, people presumably reached out to these individual Board members, rather than the whole Board, because they felt the individuals could be trusted a lot better than the Board as a whole. Which in my mind is totally understandable.
If people reached out in confidence, demanding that their experiences and information be turned over to the entire Board - without noting that as a caveat when first interacting with the source, or without asking for the source's permission - well, I'd be cagey too. Anyone who has ever dealt with human subject research would be cagey.
if people *did* grant permission, obviously that's an entirely different situation. But if they didn't, James was doing entirely the right thing by refusing to turn over, wholesale, information communicated to him and him alone, to a wider body that was quite clearly not trusted by the people making these reports.
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:03 PM, SarahSV sarahsv.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Denny Vrandečić vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
The protection of any personal or confidential information was, to the best of my knowledge, at all time guaranteed and has not been compromised. The official task force, set up by the Trustees, worked under the standards of keeping confidentiality, obviously. I thought this goes without saying, but I am explicating it.
Was information passed to people on the task force without the original
sources' consent?
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe