Mailing List Archive

On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/09/06, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > When someone expresses their "not understanding", a better answer
> > might be : "Ah, this is not what I meant, I must have expressed
> > myself the wrong way, let me try to explain differently". More
> > constructive than "I am right, you understood that all wrong".
>
>
> In the present case, it appears they did not bother to express their
> "not understanding", but instead went straight to publicly insinuating
> legal threats. I find it hard to see this as the fault or the
> responsibility of the speaker.

I am afraid I do not understand where you see legal threats. Can you
please be more precise?

Thank you,

Delphine
--
~notafish
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 03/09/06, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/4/06, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:

> > In the present case, it appears they did not bother to express their
> > "not understanding", but instead went straight to publicly insinuating
> > legal threats. I find it hard to see this as the fault or the
> > responsibility of the speaker.

> I am afraid I do not understand where you see legal threats. Can you
> please be more precise?


Looking again, I'm completely wrong to characterise the discussion of
possible legal issues this way. I must apologise to Bradipus for
having done so.

That said, it still strikes me as odd to see that amount of
speculative text before, er, asking what the words legally mean as
used.


- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

David Gerard wrote:

>That said, it still strikes me as odd to see that amount of
>speculative text before, er, asking what the words legally mean as
>used.
>
Normally in law words have their regular dictionary definition unless
the statute provides a more specific definition.

Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English:
"govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control,
influence or regulate.
"manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain
control or influence over.

This is much closer to the meaning that the French speakers are
concerned about. If somehow certain Americans believe that these words
should have a more benign interpretation there should be some legal
basis for that. One deals with these ambiguities before they become
real problems. When the dispute goes so far that the courts are left to
decide they will do so on the basis of what they have in front of them.
Judges tend to be unmoved when people complain that they thought the
opponent differs from what is on paper.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere wrote:

> We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words
> do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying
> your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong"
> one, would be a very wrong approach.

As long as the discussion is in English, the English meaning of
the words is the correct one. When the text is translated to
French, other words that have the same meaning must be chosen.
Sorry, I don't speak French so I can't help out with details.

But in this case, the cultural difference seems to be about how
much importance is given to a single word. I haven't seen the
French participants explain exactly which practical problems or
consequences they see from Jimbo's statement, or how they suggest
he should have phrased it instead. Without this explanation,
their apparent anger seems irrational. Perhaps this is a sign
that something else is wrong? Perhaps they want to be angry?

In January 2001 Jimbo was careless enough to say Wikipedia might
have advertising in the future, or something to that end. You can
of course interpret words such as "advertising", "might" and
"future" very differently, but the practical problem is that many
would dislike the non-commercial wikipedia.org (then .com) to look
like normal commercial websites. The consequence at that time was
that the Spanish user community forked and moved to their own
website, not because this problem had occurred, but because they
feared it might occur, perhaps in the near future. (There could
of course have been other reasons for the fork, and maybe this
statement was used only as an excuse. I don't know that, but I
happen to know that setting up your own server can be great fun.)
Jimbo later clarified that he saw advertising as a possible last
resort, i.e. a much weaker interpretation of "might" and "future",
but then the Spanish fork had already taken place.

Really, all that is required is to "assume good faith". When a
statement sounds like terrible news, perhaps there was a simple
mistake in translation. It is better to ask for a clarification
before starting to get angry.

Hmm... there is no French interwiki link for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>We may use the same words (managing, governing), but these words
>>do not have the same sense in my country and in yours. Saying
>>your sense is the "correct" one, while our sense is the "wrong"
>>one, would be a very wrong approach.
>
>
> As long as the discussion is in English, the English meaning of
> the words is the correct one.

You are missing the point.
We claim to be an international organisation. Which mean people must
understand each other. As Delphine explained, there is what person1 mean
to say, what person1 really say, what person2 hears and what person2
really understand.

There is no "correct" sense. There is a need for people to have the same
interpretation of words.


When the text is translated to
> French, other words that have the same meaning must be chosen.
> Sorry, I don't speak French so I can't help out with details.
>
> But in this case, the cultural difference seems to be about how
> much importance is given to a single word. I haven't seen the
> French participants explain exactly which practical problems or
> consequences they see from Jimbo's statement, or how they suggest
> he should have phrased it instead.

The mission statement in the bylaws refers to "support". Not to
governing or managing. If the bylaws statement is incorrect and the
Foundation is governing the projects, then the statement should be fixed.
I suggest we say the Foundation supports the projects, as the mission
statement says (and as I think we are really doing).

Without this explanation,
> their apparent anger seems irrational. Perhaps this is a sign
> that something else is wrong? Perhaps they want to be angry?
>
> In January 2001 Jimbo was careless enough to say Wikipedia might
> have advertising in the future, or something to that end. You can
> of course interpret words such as "advertising", "might" and
> "future" very differently, but the practical problem is that many
> would dislike the non-commercial wikipedia.org (then .com) to look
> like normal commercial websites. The consequence at that time was
> that the Spanish user community forked and moved to their own
> website, not because this problem had occurred, but because they
> feared it might occur, perhaps in the near future. (There could
> of course have been other reasons for the fork, and maybe this
> statement was used only as an excuse. I don't know that, but I
> happen to know that setting up your own server can be great fun.)
> Jimbo later clarified that he saw advertising as a possible last
> resort, i.e. a much weaker interpretation of "might" and "future",
> but then the Spanish fork had already taken place.
>
> Really, all that is required is to "assume good faith". When a
> statement sounds like terrible news, perhaps there was a simple
> mistake in translation. It is better to ask for a clarification
> before starting to get angry.

Assume good faith...
Okay. Let me suggest another interesting approach of the issue then...

You know we frequently receive lawyers calls or mails. Some of them
being ... ahum, just plain "invitations to meet in a court in front of a
judge".
The one invited is the *Foundation*. Usually not the author. Usually not
the global community. Not you. It is the Foundation, and through the
Foundation, it is the board.

One of the best arguments we use to defend the Foundation in court is
"the Foundation is NOT the author. The Foundation is not governing the
projects. The Foundation is not in charge. The Foundation does not set
the rules and the editorial policy. The Foundation is ONLY hosting the
projects".

Poor argument to defend ourselves if the Foundation at the same time
publicly claims to be managing and governing the projects.

The lawyer in charge of putting our head in the mud, imho, will not
assume good faith. Lawyers do not know bad faith and good faith. They
know results. The lawyer will simply use the statement to show that the
claim we make in the bylaws of simple "support"... is incorrect.

In short, public statement that we are governing and managing the
projects, not only is incorrect in certain definitions of the words
"managing" and "governing", but on top, it is dangerous.

I am sorry to say that. But I am serious :-(

> Hmm... there is no French interwiki link for
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

Which is of course always a good reminder anyway :-)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anthere wrote:
> The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the
> concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which
> have different meaning and implications depending on languages.

Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French,
to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Late coming eh? However ...

On 9/3/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:

> Does it mean that the foundation is involved in every little decision?
> Of course not, but that is not what "governs" and "manages" means.

As Anthere said, those two words can mean the very "involved in every
decision" or at least "responsible in every little decision" in some
cultures/contries. Those who come from those areas could understand
those words in that meaning, not a US guy might have meant. And both
of two can hardly realize they have found different connotations
there. Unless they face the result of different analysis. In this
thread, it arose between two people who have been working together for
years and in good terms, and even that, it took a series of mails. And
as Anthere said, in Japanese (or in Japanese contexts) manage and
govern could mean more serious intervention/responsibility. In another
cultural context, it could mean another attitude and deed.

That's a fun and difficulty in an intercultural communication. What
you said can be always taken in a different way. What you understand
can be different from what you heard. Vise versa. Essentially there is
nothing different in communication in your neighborhood. Just
differences can be easily amplified.

So, for being well understood, please be aware of those possibility;
here you are talking for people whose cultural backgrounds could be
different. Specially, I would like English native speakers to be
consious to it. International communication is not totally same with
talk to your neighborhood, it needs a different attention, wording,
attention of different type. If someone said very rudeness, it would
be your misunderstood or just his or her misunderstanding.

--
Kizu Naoko
Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org
* vivemus, mea Lesbia, amemus *
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
>
>>The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the
>>concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which
>>have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
>
>
> Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French,
> to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.
>
> --Jimbo


Yup. Done.
Hmmm, since then Bradypus has decided to join foundation-l :-)

ant

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yep, here I am.

I have followed the thread and I would like to thank most of you, including
Jimbo, for taking some moments to try to bring answers to my questions.

I have of course a special thank for Anthere, who brought the issue here.

For some of you, I would like to make things clear: in asking these
questions, I never made a legal threat, I never made any threat at all, I
was never rude to anybody and I never considered anybody's input otherwise
than by assuming good faith.

At some point, of course, I had a small issue with Jimbo, as I am pretty
sure he did not read my second and last message on his page. But I fully
understand he is a super busy guy. I am just telling this because some have
questionned my capacity to read what others are writing ;-)

In case you would be interested by what my conclusion is, well you can read
it there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
The page has been completely reworked to facilitate reading for both
language speakers (french and english).
My current conclusions are pretty much the same as what they were a week
ago, and the same as what lots of people said here.
So I guess now I did get it, although I think Anthere may be right when she
says using words such as "govern" and "manage" might create an issue also
with the outside world.

Still happy to discuss.

Bradipus
aka Vincent

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthere" <Anthere9@yahoo.com>
To: <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How not to manage opensource project


> Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> Anthere wrote:
>>
>>>The problem is that whilst "you" and "I" will generally agree on the
>>>concept, you can not expect that people will read "properly" terms which
>>>have different meaning and implications depending on languages.
>>
>>
>> Then I trust that you will help me by explaining my meaning in French,
>> to French people, since I can speak only English and (barely) German.
>>
>> --Jimbo
>
>
> Yup. Done.
> Hmmm, since then Bradypus has decided to join foundation-l :-)
>
> ant
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Bradypus wrote:

>At some point, of course, I had a small issue with Jimbo, as I am pretty
>sure he did not read my second and last message on his page. But I fully
>understand he is a super busy guy. I am just telling this because some have
>questionned my capacity to read what others are writing ;-)
>
>In case you would be interested by what my conclusion is, well you can read
>it there: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Bradipus/Chat_with_Jimbo
>The page has been completely reworked to facilitate reading for both
>language speakers (french and english).
>My current conclusions are pretty much the same as what they were a week
>ago, and the same as what lots of people said here.
>So I guess now I did get it, although I think Anthere may be right when she
>says using words such as "govern" and "manage" might create an issue also
>with the outside world.
>
It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends
that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The
uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.

As I quoted before:

>Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English:
> "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control,
>influence or regulate.
> "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain
>control or influence over.
>
When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is
better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend
on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of
those words.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o
I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that
was interesting.
It is really all about what a court would think in front of an organisation
that would at the same time say "I am not accountable for the content of
Wikipedia" and "I am governing and managing Wikipedia".
Do you want to test that?
Not sure just looking at the Webster solves the issue: it can only be solved
by the appropriate persons, i.e. US lawyers.
I myself have a law degree, but a european one. And I heard such strange
things about the legal system they have in the colonies ^_^

Bradipus

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge@telus.net>
> It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends
> that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The
> uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.
>
> As I quoted before:
>
>>Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English:
>> "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control,
>>influence or regulate.
>> "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain
>>control or influence over.
>>
> When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is
> better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend
> on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of
> those words.
>
> Ec
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Bradypus wrote:

>You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o
>I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that
>was interesting.
>
Je n'ai pas dit qu'Anthere est excentrique, mais même si je ne l'aurais
pensé ça ne serait que pour exprimer une forme conique parmi les plus
gentilles.

L'excentricité dont je parlait s'appliquait à une idée et pas à une
personne. La personne qui se servait d'une interpretation excentrique
n'était pas Anthere.

>It is really all about what a court would think in front of an organisation
>that would at the same time say "I am not accountable for the content of
>Wikipedia" and "I am governing and managing Wikipedia".
>Do you want to test that?
>Not sure just looking at the Webster solves the issue: it can only be solved
>by the appropriate persons, i.e. US lawyers.
>I myself have a law degree, but a european one. And I heard such strange
>things about the legal system they have in the colonies ^_^
>
>Bradipus
>
Poursuivre une décision dans la cour ne serait pas ma façon préféré de
régler cette affaire. Je préférerais un choix de mots plus sensible à
la situation. Effectivement en réclamant le droit "to govern and
manage" on doit accepter une plus grande responsabilité pour ce qui se
passe. On ne peux plus prendre la position d'être un simple fournisseur
d'accès. Il faut se rappeler que l'idée du "free" telle qu'elle est
comprise par les "Libertarians" américains reste toujours embourbée dans
le paradoxe. Elle naît de la théorie corporatiste que les américains
sont les mieux doué pour définir la liberté des autres.

Je doute que les avocats américans seraient les meilleurs personnes pour
trouver une solution. Rappellons nous qu'on peut toujours s'acheter un
avocat qui donnerait la réponse qu'on veut, surtout dans un système
adversarial.

Si le statut ne donne pas de définition aux mots employés, il faut avoir
recours aux précédents. Si les précédents nous servent pas il faut
regarder dans le dictionnaire pour avoir le sens ordinaire des mots.
J'admet que je n'ai pas fais de recherche dans les loi de la Floride, et
que je n'ai pas regardé dans les décisions judiciaires pour me
renseigner comment qu'ils ont interprté "govern" et "manage"

Quand on considère le système de lois inquisitorialles en Europe il est
difficile de le faire sans craindre l'influence de la main phantome du
pape. :-)

Ec

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge@telus.net>
>
>
>>It is inaccurate to cast this issue in the framework of false friends
>>that characterize a language based difference of meanings. The
>>uncertain meaning is just as much there in English alone.
>>
>>As I quoted before:
>>
>>
>>>Thus according to the 2001 New Oxford Dictionary of English:
>>> "govern": conduct the policy, action and affairs of; control,
>>>influence or regulate.
>>> "manage": be in charge of, administer, run, regulate; maintain
>>>control or influence over.
>>>
>>>
>>When there is a possibility that future confusion would arise it is
>>better to find common ground on the meaning of words, rather than depend
>>on a single person's subjective and perhaps eccentric interpretation of
>>those words.
>>


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge@telus.net>


Bradypus wrote:

>You say Anthere is eccentric? :-o
>I think I agree with you, but Anthere had raised an interesting issue that
>was interesting.
>
Je n'ai pas dit qu'Anthere est excentrique, mais même si je ne l'aurais
pensé ça ne serait que pour exprimer une forme conique parmi les plus
gentilles.

L'excentricité dont je parlait s'appliquait à une idée et pas à une
personne. La personne qui se servait d'une interpretation excentrique
n'était pas Anthere.
------
I was just teasing you Ray, and I am pretty sure Anthere perfectly
understood this.
For the rest of you message: no comment.

Bradipus


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l