On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Mike Godwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > James Rigg writes: > >> 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. > > Similarly, lots of people use the term "freedom of speech" but are > unwilling to allow other people the freedom to perjure themselves in > court proceedings, commit libel, or conspire to commit a crime. These > means those hypocrites are misusing the term "freedom of speech" of > course. Very dishonest or them, or at least disingenuous. > > > --Mike > >
As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post title and contents - against another contributor to the list isn't very professional. People understand that freedom of speech does not mean that someone has the right to falsely shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema, but people also understand that calling an organisation transparent, when it is in fact semi-transparent, is misleading. James _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
