On 12/14/10 2:39 PM, KIZU Naoko wrote: > You can claim to call it Devouard's Law, if preferable.
Haha, no. It is far too similar to Godwin Law. It would be plagiarism (#evil). But I stand up by my claim. I would be curious to see how it evolves. Any mention of censorship ---> reference to Wikileaks Ant > > 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
