It is solved the way all large organizations solve things, by compartmentalization. The WP compartments, most of them, work very well. On 10/8/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

I'd add that we lost core values to be shared among many fiction enthusiasts. From the spoiler warnings to excessive fair use we let them drift away from the mission to the point pulling them back into the fold was very nearly bloody. On 10/8/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: the expertise more our [[George who -- -Brock

on 10/9/07 8:34 AM, Brock Weller at brock.weller(a)gmail.com wrote: Brock, If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea.

on 10/8/07 10:52 AM, John Lee at johnleemk(a)gmail.com wrote: To study this properly we need to more closely define "the community" as it relates to the Wikipedia Project.

<snip> In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster. The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community. Marc Riddell

In this case size does not matter when considering the negative friction. What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor. You can have a group of a thousand persons, and, if each of these persons has the positive interpersonal skills to communicate with another, much can be accomplished. On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster. The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community.

On 10/9/07, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "Massive" collaboration generally only occurs in project space. In the course of editing an article or suite of related articles you'll probably collaborate with a few dozen people at the most, and usually a lot fewer.

On the other hand, you can have a group of ten where the majority of them don't play well with others - and you will have a gridlock disaster.

What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a constructive way with another contributor.

The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members who make up that community. Marc Riddell

Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for improvement beyond the hope that "If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a massive sea." Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how can we institutionally encourage this?

On 10/9/07, K P &lt;kpbotany(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 10/10/07, Marc Riddell &lt;michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote: > on 10/9/07 11:49 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com wrote: >> Marc, I now ask you whether,m having made what I think to be a correct >> diagnosis, you have from your experience any suggestions for >> improvement beyond the hope that >>> "If a part of those core values is respect for the individual, then, by >> reaching out to those individuals we will be reinforcing both the individual >> and those values. These groups are made up of individuals who want to be >> seen and dealt with as such; and not as merely one expendable drop in a >> massive sea." >>> Not that this is wrong--it is totally right as far as it goes. But how >> can we institutionally encourage this? >> David, > In very short: for a start we could begin by greatly improving how we talk > to each other. > There are very effective steps, and indeed entire programs, that could be > instituted in the Project that would, in time, profoundly improve the very > culture of the Project - which is what we are really talking about here. > I have concrete proposals for implementing such programs. BUT, to lay them > out here now would be a complete waste of time. BECAUSE, aside from you and > a few others, most people on this List appear to believe that the culture of > the Project is just fine as it is. To seriously discuss solutions to a > problem, there must first be an agreement that such a problem exists. > We keep talking about what Wikipedia is & is not. As we look to the future > we should also be asking what else it could be. > Marc >>> On 10/9/07, K P &lt;kpbotany(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> On 10/8/07, Marc Riddell &lt;michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net&gt; wrote: >>>> What does matter is the individual contributor's ability to interact in a >>>> constructive way with another contributor. >>> .... >>>>>>> The problems are not with the Community, but with the individual members >>>> who >>>> make up that community. >>>>>>> Marc Riddell >>>>>> Geeze, Marc, you just won't let go about personal responsibility, will you? >>>>> On the other hand, when I act badly, I usually am the one to blame for >>> it. But it just seems so simple, in a way. >>>>> KP

We can always create another mailing list, or a discussion project on en.wikipedia or meta somewhere.

I agree that there are cultural issues, but my long experience with internet culture makes me tend to think that there aren't real "solutions" for them per se.

However, I am open to having my mind changed on that point.

We can always create another mailing list, or a discussion project on en.wikipedia or meta somewhere. I agree that there are cultural issues, but my long experience with internet culture makes me tend to think that there aren't real "solutions" for them per se. However, I am open to having my mind changed on that point.

-george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com