3 ms·

Relations between those what run wiki and those what own wiki have always been strained. I'd imagine the LYING about the new product idea is a bigger cause of

Relations between those what run wiki and those what own wiki have always been strained. I'd imagine the LYING about the new product idea is a bigger cause of vitriol than the product itself. Wikipedia editors had been asking to see documentation about the Knight Foundation grant for several months, but Wikimedia was not forthcoming with the details. Earlier this month, documents related to the grant were leaked to and published by The Signpost, Wikipedia's online newspaper. In a special report, The Signpost published the 13-page grant agreement and ran an article asserting that the "Knowledge Engine" would be, contrary to statements by Jimmy Wales and other board members, some type of generalized Internet search engine.

kafkaesq 11y ago
But were they actually LYING about the new product proposal? Or maybe they were just hashing out what they'd like the proposal to be, and how it's articulated, before putting it forth for community review? If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. It's often better to wait a bit before unveiling a proposal -- until it's gelled, and you have a clear articulation of what it's going to be -- rather than dump some half-baked statement of it on everybody (which would just burn through their time, and have other negative consequences).
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that aren't ready to be broadcast, and betraying the trust someone has placed in me with the understanding there are just some things I have to operate on in secret. And if you've ever been involved in anything "management-esque," you'll know that a mutual acceptance of what barriers exist doesn't preclude being deceitful and dishonest in protecting that knowledge. I won't say the line is perfectly clear, but lets look at the scenario in question. Responding in a hairsplitting manner that serves to mislead someone asking pointed questions about ideas behind the curtain. It occurred at non-profit that values transparency, the ideas were in flux but firm enough to seek grant funding, and there were no externally-imposed legal constraints to stay quiet on it. Well, that seems quite firmly in the "lie of omission" category.
  - kafkaesq 11y ago
    I get your general point. About general principles and such. But please understand that as an outsider, it's difficult to see (from what you've written above) where trust was broken, or what other lines have been crossed. You do seem quite strident in your overall judgement of what happened. But I still don't have a clear picture (or any picture really) as to what did happen. You know, an event chronology, or the like? That might be helpful.

kafkaesq 11y ago

But were they actually LYING about the new product proposal? Or maybe they were just hashing out what they'd like the proposal to be, and how it's articulated, before putting it forth for community review? If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. It's often better to wait a bit before unveiling a proposal -- until it's gelled, and you have a clear articulation of what it's going to be -- rather than dump some half-baked statement of it on everybody (which would just burn through their time, and have other negative consequences).

forgottenpass 11y ago
If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that aren't ready to be broadcast, and betraying the trust someone has placed in me with the understanding there are just some things I have to operate on in secret. And if you've ever been involved in anything "management-esque," you'll know that a mutual acceptance of what barriers exist doesn't preclude being deceitful and dishonest in protecting that knowledge. I won't say the line is perfectly clear, but lets look at the scenario in question. Responding in a hairsplitting manner that serves to mislead someone asking pointed questions about ideas behind the curtain. It occurred at non-profit that values transparency, the ideas were in flux but firm enough to seek grant funding, and there were no externally-imposed legal constraints to stay quiet on it. Well, that seems quite firmly in the "lie of omission" category.
- kafkaesq 11y ago
  I get your general point. About general principles and such. But please understand that as an outsider, it's difficult to see (from what you've written above) where trust was broken, or what other lines have been crossed. You do seem quite strident in your overall judgement of what happened. But I still don't have a clear picture (or any picture really) as to what did happen. You know, an event chronology, or the like? That might be helpful.