I agree, that the Bush administration pushed back the idea of an open
government and started to act in secret way too often in the name of
"national security". But I do not agree to that development.
Demanding public scrutiny is neither naive nor desctructive.
It's an essential part of what the president is claiming to export:
Democracy
Puppy schrieb:
Utter nonsense. For example, the president and the
entire secret service
as well as judges and the police are all public servants, paid from the
publics pocketbook. And they all have confidential and secret
information, and taxpayers demanding they "tell all" or risk public
censure is beyond naive, its destructive, self and otherwise. ArbCom and
most of the entire Wikimedia family of projects are not even paid,
giving us even less "rights" over them than we as taxpayers have over
our public servants.
(I speak as an American, please excuse the US-centric verbiage)
Raphael Wegmann wrote:
> George Herbert schrieb:
>
>> Accountability in some situations is "we trust Arbcom and Jimbo, who
>> we find to be honorable trustworthy people and who we expect to do the
>> right thing for Wikipedia, and explain to the degree possible
>> afterwards".
>>
>>
> I don't think so.
>
> Public's trust rests upon authorities being openly accountable.
> If any authority refuses to disclose information to the public,
> they are stripping the public of its ability to hold them accountable,
> which will as likely as not result in a loss of public trust.
> However, it is the authorities that first display a lack of trust
> in the public.
>