On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:52 AM, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the > Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time? > > I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people > ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into > Commons and the Encyclopedias at times and in places, and it's > inconvenient to have Fox News making a big deal about false claims of > pedophiles or child porn on Wikipedia when we're trying to be taken > seriously as a responsible charitable organization, and so forth. > > But that does not mean that it's necessarily something the Foundation > should involve itself in at this point.
Sorry, but I couldn't resist. Call me a troll or whatever, but this is the right question and it deserves the right answer to be repeated. At May 7th [1] I've already answered that question: "What Jimmy's sexually impaired super rich friend wish, Jimmy do and then Board transform into the rule or a statement." Fortunately, Robert Harris is much more sane. (Thanks, Sue!) [1] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-May/057799.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
