Thanks, Anthony. As can be seen from the diff, the discussion at the time
went like this:


Given the history, but also the absolute bungling mess and total lack of
professionalism that the board has shown since these events, you will find,
Jimbo, that there is a significant proportion of the people who voted for
James who are unwilling to believe a single word of what the board
continues to try not to say. This comes on top of a long list of disasters
that others have summarized above. As for your claim to be a bigger
champion for transparency, please back it up with the details on the
restricted grant from the Knight foundation immediately. *Talk is cheap,
actions speak volumes.* MLauba (Talk) 18:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

What sort of details do you want? I'll have to talk to others to make sure
there are no contractural reasons not to do so, but in my opinion the grant
letter should be published on meta. *The Knight Grant is a red herring
here, so it would be best to clear the air around that completely as soon
as possible*.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


I have seen Jimmy Wales make statements like this many times, as a sort of
exercise in crowd control. It calms frayed tempers.

It introduces some reasonable-sounding explanation why people can't have
what they demand right now, along with a strongly worded, almost
over-the-top assurance that not only are they right to demand it, but that
Jimmy Wales actually wants the very same thing himself.

And then everybody goes away, and nothing happens.

So, what does it actually mean when Jimmy Wales says something like this to
the community in response to criticism?

Do people think this is good governance, secretly admire the Machiavellian
chutzpah, or what?


On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Anthony Cole <> wrote:

> Just copying part of Andreas's comment from another thread:
> "...can the board now please come to a decision on whether the Knight
> Foundation grant letter and grant application documents will be posted on
> Meta, and if not, provide an explanation to the community why they cannot
> be made public?
> "To recap, Jimmy Wales said over two weeks ago on his talk page[1] that in
> his opinion the documentation should be posted on Meta, to clear the air
> around this issue. However, nothing appears to have happened since then."
> [1]
> Anthony Cole
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> New messages to:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to:

Reply via email to