Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to have more effective collaboration in a structured environment. However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community trust, or keep the most productive contributors.
Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those most involved in that structure.
The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like chaos. Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and spontaneous group. And some of the older people are here because of disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present structure is best suited to do. This does not include writing the 21st century version of the 9th edition of the Brittanica, a scholarly compendium of formal knowledge--I agree with Marc that we are not suited to that.
DGG
On 6/27/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.
I don't like it. Why should we change a phrase which we have grown accustomed to, to a bland metaphore?
Yes. If a catchphrase is working, don't change it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the suggestion bland. Changing symbols involves unnecessary risks.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l