Marc Riddell wrote:
On 13/05/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
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?
on 5/13/07 5:15 PM, David Gerard at dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Answer: I'm not sure it would be workable, and I suspect it would kill the golden goose.
David,
In what ways could the existence of a designated, day-to-day leader be unworkable in WP? I believe, without such a leader, the goose you refer to will inevitably lose its way.
Marc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This thread suggests me to offer you this link for consideration: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200609/wikipedia/4
I have seen several leaders rise and fall in the history of Wikipedia. But if they now do not have impact any more, they did at some point and left a powerful inprint. All but one became leaders out of their own abilities in leadership. Only one leader was designated in our past. He went away over 5 years ago. Dozen of people had more influence that him since then, but he stays a reference, at least in the press; I remember when he left (and I am glad he did - we did not need him any more, he was making more troubles than resolving them). But when a leader is designated, it is difficult to have authority on him, and removing him requires efforts and creates pain. I would rather recommand to help natural leaders rise by themselves.