>> 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.
>> Marc Riddell wrote:
> 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
>
on 5/14/07 8:01 AM, Florence Devouard at Anthere9(a)yahoo.com wrote:
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.
Florence,
Thank you very much for the link. It filled a large gap of WP history for
me, most especially its leadership.
It's clear the Community has been burned in the past in the area of
leadership. For this reason alone, presenting the idea of a "leader" in WP
could be met with a great degree of skepticism, even hostility.
"Natural leaders" will rise in the Project; they are its Group Leaders. And,
when decisions need to be made within their particular Group, they have the
skills to muster agreement within the Group to make them. However, when the
problems presenting involve the inter-workings of several of these Groups,
much less the entire Project - these leaders need a Leader.
As to history: Entrepreneurs can make very poor managers. This is not a
fault but a characteristic. The challenge, the thrill, the rush, if you
will, for the entrepreneur is the startup, taking an idea and making it
real. Once the work is created, the idea of managing it day to day can be,
well, boring. It is like having the architect/builder of a structure stay
and manage its day-to-day operation.
However, a responsibility of that entrepreneur, must be to leave someone in
charge of its operation. I can see from the link you provided, that those
left with the day-to-day leadership - to put it simply - were more
interested in protecting their own (apparently fragile) egos, than in
protecting - much less nurturing - the Project.
The Leader I am speaking of is a person with a passion for the Project and
its people, but detached from its content. Someone with the patience,
interest and skills to manage the day-to-day activities of a Project. They
should not be involved in any active editing of any Article in the Project.
Their role is strictly a problem-solving one. A person that, when all the
dust settles, at whose feet the daily buck does stop.
This person may be difficult to find, but I do not believe impossible. The
person can come from within the Project or from without. However, if from
within, that person would need to stop all editing of content, and devote
all of their time and energy to helping those who are.
My main intent with this thread was to get some serious, creative minds
thinking about what I see is a serious problem confronting the future of WP
and its people.
Marc Riddell
--
If you're restricted to what is - you are cut off from - - what could be.