On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed
been ethical here - we just
didn't know about it.
You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be
corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption
in the real world in the general case (although it is a standard
assumption on Wikipediocracy).
I'm not claiming that at all. I am pointing out that there was a lack of
public knowledge - and that "corruption" was therefore not eradicable as an
option.
And perception of our organisation is one of the
problems we need to address.
This problem appears to be one with your perceptions, i.e. that you
make a default assumption of massive corruption and then expect the
people you're assuming this of to treat your assumption as reasonable.
Not at all; for example, the media have perceived that Roger is a director
of WMUK, and that this project is related.
Tom