on 2/2/11 2:41 PM, David Goodman at dggenwp@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