[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia Leadership (was NY Times article on gender gap in Wikipedia contributors} - repost

[Marc Riddell]

on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp at gmail.com wrote:

> Marc, you should know me better than that.
> 
> No one way of work is capable of doing everything. Wikipedia  has
> proved capable of being an extremely useful general purpose reference
> source for most routine purposes--probably the most useful such source
> that has ever been created. This is hardly a trivial accomplishment,
> but there are other information needs in the world also, among which
> is a free academically verified encyclopedia certified as such by
> known experts. When I cam to Wikipedia, I simultaneously joined   the
> original group of editors at Citizendium, which had promise of
> accomplishing this, with the intention of working it parallel.
> Unfortunately their project accomplished very little, due to a number
> of erroneous decisions at the start, which inhibited the process of
> building a critical mass of material; I hope it may yet recover, and
> therefore have remained a member of their editorial team. I do not
> think the Wikipedia structure of freely open editing  can really do
> this; I do not think we   have found a good free   model, & I suspect
> that it may need central editorial control of a relatively
> conventional nature.
> 
> I hardly oppose a project with such control: indeed, I tried to help
> form one. From what I have seen, it would however not be capable of
> the extraordinarily wide-ranging coverage and open opportunity for
> contributors to develop their skills that Wikipedia provides. We at
> Wikipedia have a working model, we should develop in such a way as to
> continue what has proven to be its strengths, not compromise them for
> the remote possibility of accomplishing something else also.  We
> should make such improvements as we can, in expecting high standards
> of writing and referencing, and also in communicating. among
> ourselves. In particular, I'd certainly advocate immediate transition
> to a much stronger response to unconstructive interpersonal behavior.
> There is little wrong with Wikipedia that greater participation cannot
> at least partially solve, and encouraging a wider community is the
> first priority.
> 
> I found it possible at Wikipedia to affect policy a little--even in my
> first year here. I have not found it possible to change it the way I
> would really like it, but that would be an unrealistic expectation
> when in a project with thousands of others who have divergent strong
> views about the way they would really like it.  To work within a
> diverse group, one must accept relatively limited goals.
> 
> In short, I am not a conservative, except in the sense of someone with
> an inclination for considerable anarchy trying to preserve some degree
> of it, despite its disadvantages. I am so much of a revolutionary, in
> fact, that I think that if one wishes radical change, it is sometimes
> better to start over again from scratch than to adapt existing
> structures.
> 
I apologize David, I did misread your statement. Thank you for this writing.
Like you, I believe very strongly in the ideas and goals of the Wikipedia
Project. But I fear for its future. I have made these fears known, and have
tried to make rational suggestions as to how to prevent what will happen if
the behemoth that the Project has become does not improve its organizational
structure. What I have encountered in this effort are two basic types of
persons: Those, blind in their euphoria, still dancing on airplane wings;
and those whose own self-interests have blinded them, and caused them to
resist any change that would effect those self-interests. Fortunately, there
is a third, much smaller (right now) group who can put aside their emotions
and self-interests, think rationally beyond today and consider the future of
the Project. They are the Movement within the Movement. They're the hope. As
for me, I have said all that I can say at this point. It's time for me to
step back and watch.

Marc