Is that our
aim?
Long ago, I used to work for market makers. These days, I do a lot of
work for Internet companies. In both lines of work, risk management is
essential. In both, the aim is to take as many well-managed,
likely-profitable risks as possible. That's how things get better, and
that's where a lot of your best information comes from.
The risk management strategy you describe strikes me as a good one for
something much more settled, like a water utility.
Do you really think Wikipedia should be that risk-averse? I had thought
it a much more dynamic enterprise, at least for the next few decades.
Risk management is always about balancing risk and reward. How
risk-averse you are determines where you put that balance (in other
words, how much reward you require to make the risk worthwhile), but
you have to put the balance somewhere. It's never wise to take a risk
that offers no reward. Being not at all averse to risk is never a good
idea.
That's all true, and I agree completely.
Remind me who was advocating taking risks that offer no reward?
Also, my question wasn't about whether one should balance risks and
rewards, but what the right level of risk tolerance is for Wikipedia.
I'm saying that I expect Wikipedia would be pretty hungry for
well-managed risk. Unless people feel that the era of innovation at
Wikipedia is more or less over, in which case the minimum-risk strategy
you suggest seems more appropriate.
Thanks,
William