LittleDan wrote:
.... In all of the other wikis (except for the ones modeled after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life" (as you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should keep doing your unpopular decisions just because you own the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also gave up control of it. We are a community, not governed by one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia is an anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as you unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia will never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
This is way off base here. Jimbo has been tirelessly caring, compassionate and fair and has been a true "benevolent dictator" in the spirit of Linus Torvalds.
His guidance and the resources he has donated has gotten us to where we are. Not only does he spend a good deal of his time on Wikipedia-related things but he has also donated many tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into the project. He didn't have to do that.
And he did this all this without the faintest hint that he expected to get anything out of Wikipedia other than the satisfaction in knowing that he is nurturing a project that is creating one of the best free resources on the Internet. Trying to ensure that human knowledge is made freely available to everyone; IMO, few things are nobler than that.
That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between benevolent to malevolent).
The Romans started on the tract of a dictatorial-type system back with Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader - just like Jimbo - but the system he created totally depended on the strength of charactor of the Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership skills or morals takes over in such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.
But in a free wiki like this it is easier to "split the empire" (sic fork) if we have bad leadership. This threat should put some limit on how "malevolent" a dictator can be.
So there are some checks and balances even in the system we have now. Although this really is the ultimate check so a better system with more checks and balances is needed.
You are young so I'm assuming your angry outbust is really directed at the system and not the man.
We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the process of setting up the Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to be angry about.
Save your ideas for when we start to draft Wikimedia's charter.
In the spirit of WikiLove (a Jimbo concept :),
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Daniel Mayer wrote:
That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between benevolent to malevolent).
A malevolent dictator would never have had the altruistic followers that Jimbo has had here. In such circumstances the 'pedia would have had far fewer articles over the same time.
The Romans started on the tract of a dictatorial-type system back with Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader - just like Jimbo - but the system he created totally depended on the strength of charactor of the Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership skills or morals takes over in such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.
I thought of a Roman emperor comparison when i was composing my previous response to this, specifically Marcus Aurelius.
We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the process of setting up the Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to be angry about.
My concern and support about the much bruited foundation has not been based on the actions of our present dictator, but on insuring long term continuity that would protect the project and make it self-sustaining far into the future.
Ec
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 01:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between benevolent to malevolent).
A malevolent dictator would never have had the altruistic followers that Jimbo has had here. In such circumstances the 'pedia would have had far fewer articles over the same time.
Never underestimate the appeal of malevolent dictators. Wikipedia would still be popular under a malevolent dictator. He'd be deposed, though.
--tc
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 01:52, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
That said, I do want to say that any
"dictatorial" type of system is
inherently flawed and the results are only as
good as the leadership and
mediation skills of the current dictator (which
can be anything between
benevolent to malevolent).
A malevolent dictator would never have had the
altruistic followers that
Jimbo has had here. In such circumstances the
'pedia would have had far
fewer articles over the same time.
Never underestimate the appeal of malevolent dictators. Wikipedia would still be popular under a malevolent dictator. He'd be deposed, though.
--tc
For an extreme example (not that this applies to you Jimbo), just think of 1984 (the book). --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Daniel Mayer wrote:
That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial"
type of system is
inherently flawed and the results are only as good
as the leadership and
mediation skills of the current dictator (which can
be anything between
benevolent to malevolent).
A malevolent dictator would never have had the altruistic followers that Jimbo has had here. In such circumstances the 'pedia would have had far fewer articles over the same time.
The Romans started on the tract of a
dictatorial-type system back with
Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader -
just like Jimbo - but the
system he created totally depended on the strength
of charactor of the
Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership
skills or morals takes over in
such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.
I thought of a Roman emperor comparison when i was composing my previous response to this, specifically Marcus Aurelius.
We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the
process of setting up the
Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to
be angry about.
My concern and support about the much bruited foundation has not been based on the actions of our present dictator, but on insuring long term continuity that would protect the project and make it self-sustaining far into the future.
Ec
So you think that wikipedia will slowly die out if we never make the Wikimedia foundation? --LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My concern and support about the much bruited foundation has not been based on the actions of our present dictator, but on insuring long term continuity that would protect the project and make it self-sustaining far into the future.
Ec
So you think that wikipedia will slowly die out if we never make the Wikimedia foundation? --LittleDan
No, that's not what I said. There are any number of unfortunate things that could happen to Jimbo which would leave the project in a difficult situation. It is prudent to develop contingency plans for these events. It would also be prudent to develop diversity in our funding sources instead of depending on one person for everything. If you want to develop a sound investment portfolio you invest in several different kinds of shares; those people who only had Enron in their portfolios only have themselves to blame for the results.
In the long run (up to 95 years into the future) who makes sure that the project's copyrights are protected from people who want to claim them as their own?
Also, how do we deal with those of our colleagues who would ruthlessly ban or who would easily forget the important principle of openness. To me, what the Foundation is all about is members taking responsibility instead of privileges.
Ec
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
.... In all of the other wikis (except for the ones
modeled
after us), there is no "supreme-dictator-for-life"
(as
you put it, perhaps humorsly, in a previous post). Most other wikis despise that we have one person running the whole thing. I don't think we should
keep
doing your unpopular decisions just because you
own
the servers. When you created Wikipedia, you also
gave
up control of it. We are a community, not governed
by
one person, but by everyone. On many of the About, FAQ, and similar pages, you state that Wikipedia
is an
anarchy, but that really is not true. As long as
you
unilaterally make decisions like this, wikipedia
will
never be a true anarchy, always a dictatorship. --LittleDan
This is way off base here. Jimbo has been tirelessly caring, compassionate and fair and has been a true "benevolent dictator" in the spirit of Linus Torvalds.
His guidance and the resources he has donated has gotten us to where we are. Not only does he spend a good deal of his time on Wikipedia-related things but he has also donated many tens of thousands of dollars of his own money into the project. He didn't have to do that.
And he did this all this without the faintest hint that he expected to get anything out of Wikipedia other than the satisfaction in knowing that he is nurturing a project that is creating one of the best free resources on the Internet. Trying to ensure that human knowledge is made freely available to everyone; IMO, few things are nobler than that.
That said, I do want to say that any "dictatorial" type of system is inherently flawed and the results are only as good as the leadership and mediation skills of the current dictator (which can be anything between benevolent to malevolent).
The Romans started on the tract of a dictatorial-type system back with Augustus Caesar. Now Augustus was a great leader - just like Jimbo - but the system he created totally depended on the strength of charactor of the Emperor. So when a person with poor leadership skills or morals takes over in such a system then we have Neros and Caligulas.
wasn't Augustus Caesar stabbed in the back by his son, Brutus? (not that I'd do that to Jimbo)
But in a free wiki like this it is easier to "split the empire" (sic fork) if we have bad leadership. This threat should put some limit on how "malevolent" a dictator can be.
So there are some checks and balances even in the system we have now. Although this really is the ultimate check so a better system with more checks and balances is needed.
You are young so I'm assuming your angry outbust is really directed at the system and not the man.
We /do/ plan on changing the system as part of the process of setting up the Wikimedia Foundation, BTW, so there is nothing to be angry about.
Save your ideas for when we start to draft Wikimedia's charter.
Why don't we draft a charter now and use it for the operation of wikipedia even before the foundation is set up.
In the spirit of WikiLove (a Jimbo concept :),
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
--LittleDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com