We (meaning Wikimedia in general) work with all sorts of projects that aren't open-governed. When we decide to work with someone, it should be because it furthers our goals (what our "goals" are is an entirely other question though) . Refusing to work with someone because it might help some other organization whose goals/values/mission/whatever are different then ours seems short sighted.
With that said, this is sort of another issue. My main point from my previous email (or at least what I was trying to say) is that you can have open governance that is not a democracy, and you can have a democratic system that is not "open". > Are we going to start giving other closed systems privileged access as well? > I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity. Well according to http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:School_and_university_projects (I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Wikiversity as a project, so I'm basing this off what I read), teachers from "real" brick-and-motor schools are encouraged to participate. Considering many such institutions are business which are in no way "democratic", I'd say we already do do that (or want to anyways). -bawolff On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Wjhonson <[email protected]> wrote: > Because Bawolff, the entire thread or sub-thread was predicated on the > notion that *we* should work with *them*. > Are we going to start giving other closed systems privileged access as well? > I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity. > > To me, the mere fact that their *content* is open (whatever that means in > actuality) isn't enough, for me to want to work with them. > The system they have in place is too disjoint from our system, for me to > advocate working with them. > The solution I proposed would change that. > _______________________________________________ Wikiversity-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l
