[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Fred Bauder]

> 2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>> 2009/6/29 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>>>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>>>> people" -
>>>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control
>>>> and
>>>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>>>
>>>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we
>>>> can
>>>> see
>>>> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent
>>>> danger)
>>>> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
>>>> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
>>>> lifespan
>>>> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case...
>>>> In
>>>> at
>>>> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
>>>> WJohnson
>>>> and geni will prevail.
>>>
>>> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
>>> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
>>> really impose a decision without discussion.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list.
>> A
>> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
>> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.
>
> Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
> community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
> not allowed to question or get an explanation for.
>

They are, in extreme instances, and the inability of the editors as a
whole to either maintain confidentiality or even make a decision, (to say
nothing of the transparency of the software) makes such decisions
necessary. What has to get done, get's done. I have some doubt that you
would actually disagree with any decision that has been made in this way.

Fred