We (meaning Wikimedia in general) work with all sorts of projects that
aren't open-governed. When we decide to work with someone, it should
be because it furthers our goals (what our "goals" are is an entirely
other question though) . Refusing to work with someone because it
might help some other organization whose goals/values/mission/whatever
are different then ours seems short sighted.
With that said, this is sort of another issue. My main point from my
previous email (or at least what I was trying to say) is that you can
have open governance that is not a democracy, and you can have a
democratic system that is not "open".
Are we going to start giving other closed systems
privileged access as well?
I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity.
Well according to
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:School_and_university_projects
(I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with Wikiversity as a project, so
I'm basing this off what I read), teachers from "real" brick-and-motor
schools are encouraged to participate. Considering many such
institutions are business which are in no way "democratic", I'd say we
already do do that (or want to anyways).
-bawolff
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Wjhonson <wjhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
> Because Bawolff, the entire thread or sub-thread was predicated on the
> notion that *we* should work with *them*.
Are we going to start giving other closed systems
privileged access as well?
I'm sure other systems would like such an opportunity.
>
> To me, the mere fact that their *content* is open (whatever that means in
> actuality) isn't enough, for me to want to work with them.
> The system they have in place is too disjoint from our system, for me to
> advocate working with them.
> The solution I proposed would change that.
>