Talk:Radical transparency
Add topic| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Radical transparency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
23 years of radically transparent evolution
[edit]Interesting to have a quick browse of the 23 years of radically transparent evolution of this article since it started ;). I'm not very impressed with Wikileaks being cited as a canonical example of radical transparency - mass-scale leaks/whistleblowing are certainly involved with transparency, but Wikileaks itself has never been transparent AFAIK. In contrast, Wikipedia (except for the Wikimedia Foundation itself) and Debian are thoroughly radically transparent: the full decision-making processes, including meta- and meta-meta- and meta-meta-meta-... decision-making processes are close to 100% (excluding exceptional cases such as copyvios, banned editors, deleted articles, privacy violations) transparent, with efficient versioning and search functions. Of course, external WP:RSes are needed before we can mention claims like these in the article. We're no longer in the wild-west-wiki era of 2003. Boud (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)