Anders Wegge Keller wrote: > Delirium <delir...@hackish.org> writes: > >> There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to >> avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect, >> and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements. > > Could you please keep the amount of crackpotish kookery at a minimum > at this list?
In what respect is it "crackpottish" or "kookery" to suggest that even appearance of impropriety, even where none exists, is damaging to nonprofit organizations that depend on public goodwill? I'm not alleging that any actual impropriety took place, and I believe Erik's explanations. But that's only because I know several of the board members and believe they have Wikimedia's best interests in mind---heck, I recall publicly campaigning for Erik's election to the board some time ago. Most people, however, neither know the board nor have any particularly great knowledge of Wikimedia's internals. Were it any other organization, as in my Sierra Club example, I wouldn't believe the explanation, so I wouldn't blame non-Wikimedians who read about this in the newspaper if they were a bit skeptical. That seems like it'll inevitably be damaging from a PR and fundraising perspective. I believe Erik's explanation of the space's benefits, I just think the Board is underestimating the negative effects to the Foundation's reputation. -Mark _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
