On 13/05/07, Marc Riddell
<michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 5/13/07 1:13 PM, David Gerard at
dgerard(a)gmail.com wrote:
> On 13/05/07, Zoney <zoney.ie(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Amazingly, on Wikipedia they aren't.
Various areas are not only one or the
>> other, but seem to switch between the two depending on whether a group of
>> people or an individual have the upper hand there, or a lot of people are
>> trying to get the upper hand on the others.
> A question: is Wikipedia the first online
community you've been deeply
> involved in?
> (Not that this is a bad thing on your part, I'm just asking. I suspect
> that this being the case for a lot of people is a lot of the
> perception of the problem. I just find myself repeatedly surprised at
> people talking about Wikipedia's problems as if they're novel in any
> way.)
Do you believe the problems outlined in this and
other posts exist in WP?
Whether WP is a person's first or fiftieth online community to be involved
in, if you do believe the problems exist, how do your comments work toward
resolving them?
I think it works better in understanding whether they're something
truly unique or manifestations of something that's come before. If the
former, it may be problem people (remove a McCarthyish list of
wikicommunists or whatever). If the latter, it may be emergent
behaviour requiring deeper work to solve or work around.
That is, solving the problems is helped by better ascertaining their nature.
David,
You still seem to be avoiding the key issue presented in this part of the
thread: Is there, or is there not, a need in WP for a strong and formal
structure of hands-on, day-to-day leadership?
Marc