On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:36 AM Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi, > Just analyse the text, read the arguments. When you express an opinion, it > warrants analysis. When this is not permitted it follows that you can not > argue based on what people state. To what extend do you allow for the > exchange of arguments when you do not allow for reading and commenting on > what has been expressed? > > For the record I do value WereSpielChequers, he is imho an accomplished > Wikimedian who I respect. > > When you tell me that I cannot comment on what people write, how do you > expose a bias. What does it do for a freedom of expression? What I bring > are arguments that you do not refute by dismissing them. > Thanks, > GerardM > > I think the problem is that you appear to have misread what he wrote, or maybe confused him with someone else entirely. Or are you replying, in this thread, to something he wrote in another? As it stands, his comment suggests that the WMF can and perhaps should change its name to something "suitable for the parent of all projects, not just Wikipedia. " The point being, as I read it, that other solutions to that problem may be available and the survey neglects to touch on them at all. Nothing in that sounds like an en.wp-centric view that one project should be the flagship for all projects and that should be reflected in the brand. Exactly the opposite. This is the issue with imputing motives to individuals who haven't stated them; you may be wrong, and if you are wrong, you may offend your target or others. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
