But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree! James On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it > hard for anybody to come to an understanding. > > James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses > absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues > to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute > and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous. > > Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run > an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities > of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding > principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned. > > I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, > but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the > extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's > commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has > decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely > transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody > realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely > transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it > doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent > a deviation from founding principles. > > Best, > parker > > > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English >> Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those >> principles". >> >> I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, >> and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the >> *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy. >> >> Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing >> in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia. >> >> James >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to >> statements >> > of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - >> the >> > conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live >> up >> > to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock >> you. >> > >> > >> > The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any >> > community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing >> lists >> > that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the >> > community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with >> > complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion >> > precursors. >> > >> > The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern >> > business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its >> plans, >> > its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising >> > model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every >> > major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of >> > time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion. >> > >> > When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in >> working >> > on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing >> > what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response >> > from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in >> short >> > order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other >> > corporation in the world. >> > >> > Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so >> > hopefully you will now reconsider. >> > >> > Nathan >> > _______________________________________________ >> > foundation-l mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
