2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com>: > I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond > nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone > give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the > Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations. No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement. > > I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia > was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium > has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the > case. > > All best wishes > > James Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have any more right to edit any given article than any other but some newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process. -- geni _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
