On 26 Aug 2007 at 12:55:36 -0600, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
So, there's my criticism for the day. I think, to far too large of an extent, things are trying to be done in ways that -once- worked, for a much smaller and more obscure project, but no longer work since that project doesn't exist anymore, and it's been replaced by a highly-publicized behemoth. Village council governance works great for a village where everybody knows everybody, but it ceases to when that village suddenly grows to the size of New York City. That doesn't mean everyone who loved that openness and informality will give it up easily, nor even that they should not insist that the best parts of that should not be retained, but changes do have to get made.
Although, I wouldn't classify the BADSITES policy as being "open" or "informal" in any way... nor does it fit very well into the general philosophical framework of the early, geeky, community; geeks tend to have "Information Wants To Be Free"-style positions in opposition to wanting tight control over the flow of information.
There wasn't likely to be any pressure for an anti-attack-site policy in the earliest days, anyway, since when it was a small geeky project it probably didn't have very many attackers out there yet.
That sort of policy is more of an artifact of the middle stage... when it's grown way beyond the tiny size of its early days, but some are desperately trying to keep (awkwardly and artificially) the cohesiveness and collegiality of those days, by forcibly shutting out parts of the outside world they find to disrupt it.
You're hopefully right that they'll outgrow that eventually, but what sort of structure will develop next?
On 26 Aug 2007 at 12:55:36 -0600, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
So, there's my criticism for the day. I think, to far too large of an extent, things are trying to be done in ways that -once- worked, for a much smaller and more obscure project, but no longer work since that project doesn't exist anymore, and it's been replaced by a highly-publicized behemoth. Village council governance works great for a village where everybody knows everybody, but it ceases to when that village suddenly grows to the size of New York City. That doesn't mean everyone who loved that openness and informality will give it up easily, nor even that they should not insist that the best parts of that should not be retained, but changes do have to get made.
on 8/26/07 6:34 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Although, I wouldn't classify the BADSITES policy as being "open" or "informal" in any way... nor does it fit very well into the general philosophical framework of the early, geeky, community; geeks tend to have "Information Wants To Be Free"-style positions in opposition to wanting tight control over the flow of information.
There wasn't likely to be any pressure for an anti-attack-site policy in the earliest days, anyway, since when it was a small geeky project it probably didn't have very many attackers out there yet.
That sort of policy is more of an artifact of the middle stage... when it's grown way beyond the tiny size of its early days, but some are desperately trying to keep (awkwardly and artificially) the cohesiveness and collegiality of those days, by forcibly shutting out parts of the outside world they find to disrupt it.
Daniel,
That "cohesiveness and collegiality" can certainly be maintained. In fact, this is crucial to survival. A community at war with itself is the most vulnerable to outside influences.
You're hopefully right that they'll outgrow that eventually, but what sort of structure will develop next?
We must begin by asking what type of culture it is that we want. Then, creatively, build a structure that supports it - and is in harmony with it.
Marc
I think the problem that needs to be addressed is editors with a clear COI (eg pharmaceutical industry lobbyists editing an article on a film on the medical industry).