On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for >> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that >> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably >> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it >> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way. >> > James, > > The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your > original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with > "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about > the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia. > > People here have given you several examples of the types of > Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think > the point has been well-made that there are certain types of > information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the > Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the > Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters > private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples. > > How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a > separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an > arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run. > > Teresa > > _______________________________________________
Please see my previous reply to David Gerard. Also, people here have equally given me examples of how *Wikipedia* is run in a non-transparent way that they are *not*happy about. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
