tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post2777579488050502462..comments2024-02-11T02:24:22.330-06:00Comments on Nonbovine Ruminations: On leaksAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04107127399494404366noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-38101140091594353242008-01-16T18:36:00.000-06:002008-01-16T18:36:00.000-06:00Regarding why there are leaks, I would think it wo...Regarding why there are leaks, I would think it would be fairly obvious. Most of the people in high-up positions have spent two hours a day for the past five years contributing to Wikipedia or some other associated wiki. Wikis are the ultimate in transparency. If I change any article, the exact changes I made, my username or IP are recorded forever and interested parties are informed of the change. I'd imagine that people who have spent so much time working on a wiki would expect that an organization whose main product is a wiki would exhibit a similar level of transparency in its dealings. Kind of sad that it doesn't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-3601398123246117262008-01-14T17:24:00.000-06:002008-01-14T17:24:00.000-06:00Nice to see you back, Kelly. :)Nice to see you back, Kelly. :)Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13746770448551153631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-47742251977135388782008-01-13T08:36:00.000-06:002008-01-13T08:36:00.000-06:00"Name a major problem with WP that *hasn't* been d..."Name a major problem with WP that *hasn't* been discussed on WR." <BR/><BR/>WR has discussed at length 428 of the last 5 major problems with Wikipedia. That's kind of what "low signal to noise ratio" means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-62009337736976448362008-01-12T19:46:00.000-06:002008-01-12T19:46:00.000-06:00WR has better signal to noise than any other criti...WR has better signal to noise than any other critique site out there.<BR/><BR/>Name a major problem with WP that *hasn't* been discussed on WR.<BR/><BR/>Try comparing the RFAr talk pages to the WR pages. Talk about your low signal to noise ratio as people pussyfoot around the issues while trying to fit them into WP-speak.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-84797555742218383162008-01-11T05:00:00.000-06:002008-01-11T05:00:00.000-06:00Greg, I also laugh. Much noise, not signals.Greg, I also laugh. Much noise, not signals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-90917126910476309192008-01-11T01:30:00.000-06:002008-01-11T01:30:00.000-06:00Gregory, I laugh at you calling Wikipedia Review's...Gregory, I laugh at you calling Wikipedia Review's blog "mostly signal". It's utter partisan tripe.Reinis I.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14271127522458529063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-91850203090038631802008-01-10T20:45:00.000-06:002008-01-10T20:45:00.000-06:00Here's a reason why people leak: Because they're t...Here's a reason why people leak: Because they're tired of being ignored. If person A gets information about a scandal, and person A is someone "on the inside", tries to get things fixed, and constantly gets ignored, and has to sit there and watch as the lack of transparency in the foundation becomes more and more prevalent, Person A is eventually going to leak that information to person B.<BR/><BR/>That's just one reason. Sometimes people leak to try and harm the foundation. Sometimes people leak because they feel the foundation board or staff is harming something, and they feel like they can stop it. The Doran leak to the Reg. could have been either one: someone trying to protect the foundation by getting it out there, or someone who felt like the foundation was covering it up and leaked it to make the foundation look bad. Or like I suggested, maybe they've been trying to change things from within and been ignored, and they felt they had no other choice to leak. Or maybe they're the kind of person who believes in 100% transparency, and will leak anything. Or maybe they felt it was just too important to keep covered up, but don't care either way. There's any number of reasons why people leak.<BR/><BR/>And Seth's answer is possible. I'm not sure if that's what's actually going on, but it entirely makes sense and is entirely common in certain organizations.<BR/><BR/>However, I have way more faith in Sue than Kelly does. I'm thinking that's not the case. In my experiences Sue is not afraid to change things from the inefficient, cliquish methods that the prior boards have clung to.Diplopotamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404500478069890295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-85196249220486098632008-01-10T01:51:00.000-06:002008-01-10T01:51:00.000-06:00Franky, I am a little confused by Jimmy's comments...Franky, I am a little confused by Jimmy's comments. In the end of the BBC article, he says: "We have no plans and no ideas about that right now." But from the transcription of the interview with the BBC's Hardtalk, he calls the idea "fabulous" and adds, "So, we are always looking at, what are some of the ways we could do that. How could we do that and make it working for everybody." <BR/><BR/>He is always looking, but has no ideas? This is not "collaborative editing," which he says makes it more difficult. It is simply monitoring a search engine. And who is this "search engine community" of which he speaks? Perhaps he should ask Jason Calacanis and the crew at Mahalo for some ideas on how to do that. Or perhaps, when confronted with difficult questions, he should give honest answers instead of pleasing the interviewer by choking on his own foot. <BR/><BR/>Listening to Jimmy, I have always found his comments tepid, juvenile, and liberally peppered with hollow sound bytes. I suppose I will have to add "disingenuous" to that stream of adjectives.<BR/><BR/>As for Sue "lying" to the Board, that is a very serious charge. After all, she answers to the Board. In the wake of the Carolyn Doran fiasco, I would hope that the Board learned its lesson about people who take advantage of them. I certainly hope that they will investigate this, and if she has, indeed, lied to them, fire her with cause.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-74091340001066485062008-01-09T14:53:00.000-06:002008-01-09T14:53:00.000-06:00Regarding "So the real question raised by this see...Regarding "So the real question raised by this seemingly innocuous leak is, "Why is Sue lying to the Board?""<BR/><BR/>No, no, no - that's a mistake. It's understandable, but it's naive thinking.<BR/>The game works this way:<BR/><BR/>SG wants to raise money. If she gave projections to the board, then that would constrain what she showed to potential donors - i.e. she can't keep two sets of books. But if she says to the Board that things are too scattered for her to get it all together, then she can show anything she wants to potential donors. Because if they question why what they saw doesn't match the later official numbers, she has an out - those were unofficial numbers she prepared in rush for the presentation, and later audited numbers changed the situation, but she didn't know it at the time she made the pitch to the donor.<BR/><BR/>The question raised by the leak is how you play this game with idealists in the audience :-)Seth Finkelsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14948189729759099429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-61459767722217294192008-01-09T09:36:00.000-06:002008-01-09T09:36:00.000-06:00Mostly agree with above comment about signal-to-no...Mostly agree with above comment about signal-to-noise, but the Wikipedia Review has a more restrictive blog that is almost entirely signal.<BR/><BR/>http://wikipediareview.com/blog/Gregory Kohshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17207068772106028805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33573016.post-38743667445099753622008-01-09T08:30:00.000-06:002008-01-09T08:30:00.000-06:00KellyIt seems obvious enough why people would leak...Kelly<BR/><BR/>It seems obvious enough why people would leak something to you - it's the easiest way to get information to the community without having to deal with fallout. Certainly this corresponds to why I read your blog - the commentary is sometimes good, sometimes bad, but you at least touch most goings-on that're very important to know while maintaining a signal:noise greater than the anisotropies of the CMB (which I can't say for enwiki-l, #wikipedia-en-admins, or any BADSITE I'm aware of).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13577560589453865189noreply@blogger.com