[Wikipedia-l] Wikia's new CEO

[Ray Saintonge]

Selina . wrote:

>On 07/06/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at wikia.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Selina . wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Go to https://sos-res.state.de.us/tin/GINameSearch.jsp and search for
>>>"Wikia" and it says it's "NOT IN GOOD STANDING" - I don't know what that
>>>      
>>>
>>>means, but it doesn't sound like a good thing.
>>>      
>>>
>>Wow, that is just staggeringly dishonest.  You do know that people can
>>click on the link and look for themselves, don't you?
>>
>>What it actually says is: "THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF GOOD STANDING"
>>
>>Wikia is in good standing, but the point this website is making is that
>>this is not where you look that up.
>>    
>>
>(Argh it's so annoying that you can't link directly, I tried messing around
>with the form input but it says "Illegal attempt", lol, talk about Assuming
>Bad Faith ;))
>Sorry, I wasn't being "dishonest" (hey, AGF?) I didn't know the difference,
>without the explanation it sounds like the meaning's the same ~shrug~ i.e.
>if the government statement about something is "bad standing" I thought it
>must be talking about the organisation - my mistake -.-
>
Bad faith is normally trumped by ignorance, and the kind of misreading 
described could reasonably fall within the wider framework of 
ignorance.  It is not unusual for people's reading abilities to be 
inconsistent with what appears in print.

I did get the "illegal attempt" response when I first tried to access 
the information, and had to restart and accept cookies before I could 
get the block capitals message that Jimbo quoted.  I suppose that Selina 
also failed to read this boilerplate text: "Additional Information is 
available for a fee. You can retrieve Status for a fee of $10.00 or more 
detailed information including current franchise tax assessment, current 
filing history and more for a fee of $20.00."  Did she pay her $10.00?

>Fred: Read my other post ("I'm not saying anything bad is going on at all,
>but there's no way for the public to know if everything's kept secret."),
>I'm not claiming anything, I misworded that - what I meant is how it COULD
>be used for Wikia and no one would basically know
>
>However I don't think it's that much of a risk I just was surprised it
>wasn't as open as I thought it would be, and worried when I read stuff
>posted on WR which sounded pretty dodgy (that topic I referred to -.-) -
>I've basically satisfied my curiousity and won't bring it up again, it
>sounds like the fears of others (I never posted in the topic, but read it..)
>may just be that, worries :)
>
In situations of this sort perceptions are more influential than facts.  
Although it is less important for Wikia decisions, Wikimedia directors 
who are also Wikia directors, employees or shareholders should declare 
their conflicts of interest and abstain from voting whenever any matter 
concerning Wikia comes up to a vote of Wikimedia directors.  This will 
go a long way toward dispelling erroneous perceptions.

Ec