4 ms·
What I don't understand is why they have to be quasi-transparent about it. They should have just released her sans-reason and made an announcement sans-details
by look_lookatme 13y ago
What I don't understand is why they have to be quasi-transparent about it. They should have just released her sans-reason and made an announcement sans-details or went fully transparent and named all the parties above. This middling disclosure in the email is confusingly non-specific.
- HarryHirsch 13y agoThey had to release Sarah and be public about it. What happened here goes straight against journalistic standards and the mission of Wikipedia, and the story would have broken sooner or later anyway. It would have been bad for donations. There's two things I just don't understand. First, how can anyone be so stupid and as a high-ranking member of Wikipedia accept money to pass of advertisement as copy? Second, what's with the culture of the Wikimedia Foundation? How come that they can hire someone with questionable ethical standards? They have continuous problems with the staff they hire, but then, from the outside, the place doesn't look like something that someone with a choice would like to be employed at.