On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>> wrote:
Apoc 2400 wrote:
Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and
nominate
"Wikipedia is not a
bureaucracy" for deletion?
"Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia
actually
functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are
taken
according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my
reading
of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't
delete
that.
Charles
Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We
should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but
if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it
says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where
to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of
contributing to Wikipedia.
- causa sui
I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management
books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is
more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative
style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the
face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki
editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue
seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki.
And we have 1000 times that, one way and another.
Charles