Marc Riddell wrote:
on 3/31/07 4:07 PM, William Pietri at
william(a)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