2008/4/24 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 24/04/2008, michael west
<michawest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
2008/4/24 Judson Dunn
<cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org>rg>:
Why is it not in en or simple? I think they are the must in these kind
or
things especially with something as fundamental
(as I can understand)
as
this.
What do you mean? It's a proposal for the English Wikipedia and is on
the English Wikipedia...
Forgive me - is this some kind of English phrased in a way many editors
would not understand? or am I think/stupid?
*Wikipedia's traditional governance model has failed to scale adequately
with the project's growth, and has become incapable of operating effectively
in a project orders of magnitude larger than it was at the time the model
was adopted.*
*Internally-motivated policy formation has effectively stagnated. The last
major changes to the main body of policy--the BLP policy and the non-free
content policy--were both essentially imposed from the outside, due to
external pressure on the project. Major internally-driven policy proposals,
such as the attribution policy, have failed to result in anything but the
predictable "no consensus" outcome.*
*This is, in some sense, inevitable in a project with a perpetually open set
of individuals available to participate. Policy debate becomes, in most
cases, nothing more than an endurance contest between those who wish to
effect some change and those who wish to retain the status quo; and, so long
as those opposed to any proposal are sufficiently dedicated and sufficiently
vocal, they can keep the debate going without any effective means being
available to force a decision. The few attempts to do so by means of a
general referendum have proven ineffective.*