Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/31/07 4:07 PM, William Pietri at william@scissor.com wrote:
we'll be more effecting focusing on shared practical goals then achieving mental conformity.
Sharing (and achieving) goals requires a shared code of ethics as well as a set of common values. And, "achieving mental conformity" is the very last thing I would advocate.
Sorry, but I'm working from the notion that chosen values and codes of ethics are mental attributes. Requiring people to conform to participate would inevitably push towards increased mental conformity. I'm saying it's more effective to focus on conformity to behavioral norms, and there only the minimal set that are required by our shared goals.
As to the first bit, that's demonstrably untrue. Hunter and hunting dog share neither values nor ethics, but achieve the goal jointly. The people I work with have many reasons for coming to work; what they have in common is coming to work. You and your banker have the shared goal of you paying off your mortgage, but neither shared ethics nor values are necessary for that.
I think that a group can be more effective when values are shared, but in my experience that's not something you achieve by fiat. By fiat, the best you can do is chase off the group who has the least power. And then you've created an environment that encourages people to lie about their actual values, which is very hard to undo.
Better that we let people be who they are, and accept all contributions that push Wikipedia forward, whatever their values, and whatever their ethics.
William