--- Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com wrote:
I don't agree with either of these sentences. I don't see any way for our policy development process to be any more open to input from the community. I can't think of a less secretive or more noisy way to organize anything. There are no back rooms here -- everything is done in public, with wide advertising throughout the system of how it's done. We're always open to suggestions, of course, but I think the system right now is a model of public accountability.
The system right now may have been good in your opinion, but it was developed without input or notice of many wikipedians. Maybe some had little input; maybe it was developed a year or two ago when many of us hadn't joined wikipedia. But either way, some wikipedians oppose the system, so it must be reconsidered
The second sentence bewilders me completely. What do your scare quotes around 'policy' mean? What do you mean by 'forcing openness'? Somehow our openness is *imposed* on the world?
We are forced to write the deletion notice. Basically, you are forcing us, and the other wikipedians, to use deletion notices.
And finally, I certainly don't agree with the notion of 'unwashed masses' -- that attitude has no place within my outlook. The very foundation of our wiki philosophy is that ordinary people can do extraordinary things, so that there's no need for elaborate hierarchies of control.
--Jimbo
I don't like the use of "unwashed masses" either LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com