Steve Summit wrote:
> Marc Riddell wrote:
>
>> on 10/7/07 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Then the community isn't rational - that doesn't really surprise me.
>>>
>> Wikipedia is an emotional community - not a rational one.
>> Whether this is acceptable is up to the Community itself.
>>
> Remember, too, that Wikipedia is supposed to be a community
> second (or, idealistically, not at all) and an encyclopedia-
> writing project first.
on 10/7/07 3:21 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote:
One
could get into a lot of semantic issues here. There is a community
whose primary objective is to build an encyclopedia.
Yes, Ray, but this community is made up of people with emotions. The most
common cause of gridlock in the project is not the conflict of ideas - but
of emotions.
And, you can keep filling a building with stuff. But, unless you have a
reliable, stable, consistent infrastructure to support it - and are
constantly working to support and maintain that infrastructure - that
building will eventually collapse.
Much of the present thinking is not keeping pace with the reality.
The thought suggested by someone else on this thread that, in essence, it
doesn't matter if, or why, a person leaves the project there are always
those to replace them - is bullshit. Once again we are reduced to expendable
bodies building a monument to someone.
Marc