Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release. So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6 September 2012 14:53, Thomas Morton <morton.tho...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding > > mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel > admins > > having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with > > Wiki Travel content. > > It seems intellectually dishonest to leave this out of public statements. > > It doesn't materially affect the issue - but it could well be seen as > > underhand by the cynical mind (i.e. if someone as suspicious as me, > > approaching this for the first time, later found out this fact it would > > certainly be an "aha" moment). > > > It certainly explicitly says just that all over the PDF. Did you read > it, before asserting bad faith? > > The blog post is somewhat wordy, but it does correctly note "The > Wikimedia movement stands in the balance". I really don't think > they're soft-pedaling this. > > > - d. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
