On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just > > didn't know about it. > > > You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be > corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption > in the real world in the general case (although it is a standard > assumption on Wikipediocracy). >
I'm not claiming that at all. I am pointing out that there was a lack of public knowledge - and that "corruption" was therefore not eradicable as an option. > > > > And perception of our organisation is one of the > > problems we need to address. > > > This problem appears to be one with your perceptions, i.e. that you > make a default assumption of massive corruption and then expect the > people you're assuming this of to treat your assumption as reasonable. > > > Not at all; for example, the media have perceived that Roger is a director of WMUK, and that this project is related. Tom
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
