You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable. On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Florence Devouard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote: >> On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >>> Calling Jimmy "Wikipedia founder" was already incredibly close to crossing >>> the line. Calling Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director" clearly crosses the >>> line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree. >>> >>> While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy >>> tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism. >> Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a >> founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to >> claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on >> the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes >> any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does >> - but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to >> Sue as "Wikipedia Executive Director", I find it inaccurate and >> confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process >> to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at >> communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our >> organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line >> as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it >> sleazy. >> >> And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal >> behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to >> a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be >> defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons >> various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil >> libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate >> tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so. >> >> --Michael Snow > > Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin > point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a > "Wikileaks point" appears > > Something like > > "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to > Wikileaks approaches 1" to refer to the chance of ending up discussing > censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate. > > What do you think ? > > Anthere > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >
-- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
