James Rigg wrote:
> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the
> running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now
> exist seem to be a departure from this.
Departure from what? From your original imagination, or from some
policy that was posted (where? when? ci
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:24 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/12 Anthony :
> > My purpose is to learn. What's yours?
>
> To actually work for the benefit of the projects.
To benefit them in what way? By ignoring all the problems and pretending
everything is always perfect?
__
2009/1/12 Anthony :
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/11 Anthony :
>> > It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and
>> the
>> > term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and
>> > complete freedom of speech is a goo
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Anthony :
>
> > It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and
> the
> > term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and
> > complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and co
2009/1/11 Anthony :
> It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and the
> term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and
> complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete
> transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this con
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > 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-transpare
James Rigg writes:
> 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.
Please. I try to use my sarcasm professionally!
> People understand that freedom of speech does not mean that some
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>> Hi
>>
>> This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
>> England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
>> thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
James Rigg wrote:
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
>
This presumes that such abandonment was a conscious act. Apparent
abandonment
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
> Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
> least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
> about the Foundation and non-pr
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg wrote:
> 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.
>
Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as tr
James,
Not to get all mechanistic on you, but the fact that you posted to the
Foundation list is part of the confusion as well. The focus here is
on the Foundation. If you have concerns specifically about the
English Wikipedia's transparency, that's really fodder for a different
discussion list.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, James Rigg
wrote:
> 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
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, 200
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 commo
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* prin
Although, on his user page he says that the mailing list is the place to
discuss the nature of Wikipedia. That seems a bit strange to me though - I
am quite sure that the volume of discussion about the nature of Wikipedia in
talk pages and meta pages vastly outweighs the discussions on the mailing
I believe the point that Jimbo is making (i will certainly be corrected if
wrong :-) is that there is no externally imposed hierarchy. The wiki really
did start as a tabula rasa, and all discussions of its hierarchy can be
found in its pages.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Rigg wrote:
> O
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
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> No, no
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>> 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 foun
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> 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
>>
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> Hi
>
> This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
> England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
> thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
> possibly even join the project! However, as a strong belie
James Rigg wrote:
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Contract negotiatio
James Rigg wrote:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
No, not at all.
___
fo
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> 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,
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> 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 i
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
James Rigg wrote:
> This 'principle':
>
> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
> Wikipedia."
>
> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
> Wikipedia. But the 'private' maili
This 'principle':
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia."
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to b
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> sta
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation
could or should be tr
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the
> Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness
> be renamed to something that bears even a passing
> familiarity to its actual function...
Yes, I had en-Wiki
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Suggested reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessne
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
>
> I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
> fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
> itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
> people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if yo
James Rigg wrote:
> It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
> ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
> been abandoned.
Hello James,
Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much
as feasible public. I don't think
That sounds a bit like a politician not wanting to admit that they've
abandoned a policy or goal! ;)
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
been abandoned.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ch
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> Best
>
> James
>
Not so much t
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Best
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>> I don't
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats.
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
importance of transpare
42 matches
Mail list logo
