On 13/05/07,
Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
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.