. And it doesn't represent
> a deviation from founding principles.
>
> Best,
> parker
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>
>> I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
>> Wikipedia and
ok! I was wrong about that part of the sarcasm
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post
>> title and contents - agains
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> James Rigg writes:
>
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, con
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those
principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency,
and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the
*stated* prin
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and whi
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it&#
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contra
run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alex wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> This 'principle':
>>
>> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
>> regarded as the place for meta-
lists which now exist seem to be
a departure from this.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive
ld be truly transparent, but I do think it is wrong for
it to trade on the kudos of transparency when it is merely
semi-transparent. And similarly for the claims I read of it being
anti-hierarchical.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
&g
11 PM, Chad wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project,
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Best
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>>
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
importance of transpare
14 matches
Mail list logo
