On 12/10/10 1:01 AM, Michael Snow wrote: > On 12/9/2010 3:28 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> Calling Jimmy "Wikipedia founder" was already incredibly close to crossing >> the line. Calling Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director" clearly crosses the >> line. From reading your posts today, I believe you agree. >> >> While I didn't and wouldn't raise the issue of criminality here, the sleazy >> tactics are in the fundraising approach, not in the criticism. > Which line are you talking about here? Crediting Jimmy Wales as a > founder of Wikipedia is indisputable. Yes, other people might wish to > claim that title as well - based on previous discussions when I was on > the Board of Trustees, I don't believe the Wikimedia Foundation takes > any position on that, although obviously Jimmy on a personal level does > - but none of those other claims can negate Jimmy's. As for referring to > Sue as "Wikipedia Executive Director", I find it inaccurate and > confusing, but I know enough about the staff and the fundraising process > to expect that it was the result of well-meaning attempts at > communicating concisely with a large audience unfamiliar with our > organizational details. Assuming good faith, I think it crossed a line > as far as accuracy goes, but being misguided or inartful hardly makes it > sleazy. > > And yes, it is sleazy and underhanded to insinuate things like criminal > behavior about other people if you're not willing to commit outright to > a set of facts to establish a charge or an accusation that can be > defended against. By way of illustration, that is one of the reasons > various advocates for a free press, free speech, and other civil > libertarians are so outraged at some of the government and corporate > tactics that have been used against Wikileaks in the past week or so. > > --Michael Snow
Lately, I have been wondering if - in a similar way than the Godwin point appeared a few years ago - we would not see something like a "Wikileaks point" appears Something like "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a reference to Wikileaks approaches 1" to refer to the chance of ending up discussing censorship and free speech whilst involved in a debate. What do you think ? Anthere _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
