jayjg wrote: It's quite rare for a company to put all job interviews on a closed circuit TV network to its entire staff so that even the most menial employees can vote on whether that interviewee will get a management job. Ec

On 6/18/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: It has happened, famously, with some workers' cooperatives, and they inevitably fail for obvious reasons. Yet we persist in doing it here -- and worse, because we have no idea who our "menial employees" are, or whether we have one person filling several jobs -- using the excuse that adminship is "no big deal." Ditch that attitude, and we would quickly find a way to deal with some of our problems. So long as it's in place, there's no will to find creative solutions.

Slim Virgin wrote: I believe you. Any idea how many people were in those co-ops? I humbly beg to differ. The fact is that modern democracies allow the most menial to vote, and they expect that right. I perfectly understand the argument that voting should be limited to those who have met some sort of qualification criteria, but maintaining that position opens a whole new range of very serious issues. Having adminship as "no big deal" is not the problem in itself; our collected conflictedness about this point is a much bigger problem. We frequently see people who claim that it's no big deal, but whose actions are inconsistent with what they claim. The down side of having adminship as a big deal that consequentially getting rid of admins is also a big deal. A system where appointing admins is easier will also make it easier to get rid of admins who get out of line. We could also have short-term desysops just as we now have short term edit blocks. Extended absences could be more easily dealt with by suspensions that could be easily reversed if the person comes back. If the person was not a problem before his absence there would be no reason to believe that he would act differently when he came back, The severe problem people that concern you will always be there, but we cannot afford to make the problem seem worse that what it is; that only encourages them. To show their true colours they need to have opportunities to fall on their faces. Your last point is especially erroneous. Creative solutions depend on the ability and willingness to take risks ([[Zack Warner]] was quick to raise that admonition earlier this evening to the current crop of potential Idols.) Jimbo himself took risks to get Wikipedia going; the risk at the time was that his financial investments could have gone down the tubes. A community of people who follow rules to the letter, and are too afraid to be bold are rarely able to get out of the box that they have created for themselves. That's not a small group when you remember that most of our teachers were also stuck in a box, and probably never knew how to teach their students to get out of the box. Ec

On 6/19/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: Only if we want to create a culture that glorifies article creators and despises maintenance workers--the one where a vandal fighter will fail an RfA, and some one has written a featured article and fought "trolls" will go on, become an admin, and do "important" things: gang up on good faith editors who happen to get in the way of some agenda, incite them to personal attacks and promptly accuse them of the same, argue on talk pages, and other items. It is they who will *make* adminship a big deal by gaining power, popularity, and influence galore. And if we classify the valuable maintenance work as "menial" (I mean, take a look at one maintenance individual edit out of thousands: hardly impressive, is it? Didn't think so), those that put in work to make Wikipedia feel like an encyclopedia will become less and less regarded as part of our community; they will fail RfA's. Those that currently work on maintenance will become disillusioned and leave. And I don't think anyone will give a damn, Sounds like a fun culture, huh? We're not there yet, but remember that you have a tool you can use: an oppose vote. Use it wisely, and we'll be well on our way. Oh, and I think we'll stop Trojan accounts as a side effect. Not sure how that works, though.

On 6/19/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: I am aware that my paragraph is somewhat out of context, and is more meant as a general response to the so-called "culture" for which you've recently been advocating. But it's a piece of satire (so, like A Modest Proposal, it naturally employs hyperbole), and I hope to heaven that you realize that. Or else I shall get a wall to bang my head against. (Figuratively.) It's meant to intellectually stoke things up, to get people to *think* about things; I have talked to some editors who have indicated that they sense the atmosphere in some parts of Wikipedia discourages original thinking about extra-content situations. Now, if you can identify why I think this culture is a bad idea, congratulations, you're off to a super start! (Or you can claim to be confused.) Cheers, Gracenotes

on 6/19/07 9:24 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com wrote: Gracenotes, Hemlock is old fashioned. How about locking yourself in a room with nothing but a TV monitor playing an endless loop of "Head On" commercials? :-) Seriously, I understood where you were coming from - I visit there a lot myself :-). Marc -- See what no one else sees. See what everyone else chooses not to see. See what everyone else fears to see. See the world anew each day.

Ray Saintonge wrote: Ugh!

on 6/19/07 9:17 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com wrote: Gracenotes, I liked what you wrote, and knew from which perspective you were writing. I had no problem figuring out the angle or true meaning of your message. I encourage you to keep writing; letting your instincts, values, and personal ethics guide you. In short: I like your style! Whereas, I agree somewhat with Ray's belief in a need for caution when writing; I would like to offer another perspective on the use of such caution in communication: Too much of it, or a preoccupation with it, can lead to no communication at all ­ except dishonest, deceptive, politically-correct mush. Satire is tricky to write, just ask the "Saturday Night Live" or "The Daily Show" writers; its purpose is to poke fun at something or someone, as well as to call attention to a social and/or political issue; to preach to the choir (that's how you get them to sing) as well as to those not yet converted. But one thing for sure - you're going to piss someone off in the process. And, if that happens, to write honestly, that needs to be OK with you. Know your intent. If that intent is to teach - expect what you are teaching to be challenged. If that intent is to inflame - expect a conflagration. If that intent is to do harm ­ expect to be called to account for it. If that intent is to communicate your truth ­ expect their truth in return. The burden of truth and understanding in any form of communication must be shared equally between the two parties. If I liked what you said, I'll tell you; if I didn't ­ I'll do the same. If we are to have a creative, free-thinking, reasonably intelligent, articulate culture within Wikipedia, can we ask or expect anything less? Marc Riddell -- Talk is no substitute for action, but in a rational society it must exist as a prelude to it.

on 6/20/07 7:39 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: But Ray, through weekly repetition these shows became know as satires; the real genius of satire is presenting it straight - and having the audience discover it is satire. This is as old as theatre itself. Marc

on 6/20/07 9:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: That still does not give anyone the right to beat up on the writer. Know you've been spoofed - get back up - and finger your jaw in painful admiration. And, "English humour" is still humor - but with a British accent. Marc

on 6/20/07 11:09 PM, Gracenotes at wikigracenotes(a)gmail.com wrote: Gracenotes & Ray, Since the material in question was posted here, how would you classify this List's audience? Marc

On 6/21/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: I thought we were progressing into general discussion about American humor vs. British humour, rather than discussion about this list in particular. Wikipedia has, by far, the most thoughtful, intelligent, perspicuous, and witty people I have had the fortune to interact with. The mailing list, despite its mud (and -slinging), has by large not proved to be an exception. Now, while responsibility is imperative, the "internets are serious business" attitude can ruin a good project (this has been noted by people other than me as well, especially in MfDs of *gasp* humorous pages). --Gracenotes

on 6/19/07 9:01 PM, Slim Virgin at slimvirgin(a)gmail.com wrote: Slim Virgin, I owe you an apology. I mistakenly attributed the use of the word "menial" to you. I see that was incorrect. In fact, having read your past contributions to the List, I was struggling to believe you had used the term. I'll pay closer attention to the order of the posts in a long thread from now on. Sorry, Marc Riddell

Marc Riddell wrote: Since I rather than Slim introduced the word "menial" I should comment on the matter, though it appears from her context that she has interpreted the word correctly. It appears that Canadian usage of this word more closely follows British usage than American usage. Thus my 2001 New Oxford refers only to jobs which lack skill or prestige and to domestic servants. Since the word applies merely to those who perform the least prestigious tasks there is no need to imply that the work is necessarily degrading. Similarly, the fact that an individual may only perform unskilled physical labour for his employer should not imply that he is necessarily degraded or submissive. The descent into disparagement appears to be an Americanism. Does Random House give any evidence for the drift that it applies to the word? What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere. In an American context the principals laid down in the Federalist Papers were at least thought out, but now the politicians often behave in a manner that is inconsistent with those principles. (Just watch the way that CNN's Lou Dobbs carries on.) At one time the purpose of religion was to bring people together in a common belief, and that did bring people together. In some communities it still does. But with the notion of God being brought into question it pulls the rug out from beneth the feet of those who used God as a major premise upon which to establish all their other beliefs. If the notion of God is really total nonsense, how do you convince the true believers of that without producing a psychological basket case. Children are told certain received truths by their parents and terachers, but they go online and with minimal research find out that those received truths are completely wrong. The parents are relatively clueless about the online world. Evil as they may be, the sexual predators remain only a tiny part of the problem. At least we can catch them and cut their balls off. But how do you protect kids against anomie when you don't even understand what it is? How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief, and Kuhn did warn us that in the great paradigm shifts there will be significant losses. I apologize if this appears as a rant of unremitting pessimism, and if I detect a suggestion of paranoia in Slim's comments I hope it's not taken as too personal. I fully appreciate that she has suffered unjust treatment by certain online persons, but I would fervantly hope that she can work with some of us who would prefer to find some basis for developpin a more trustful environment. We need to teach ourselves first. Ec

Marc Riddell wrote: Yeah, I guess there is a certain monootone to what he says. As a Canadian, I can't agree with everything that he says. Nevertheless, I get a chuckle over his observations about how the American worker is being treated by American business. In "Tte Foolish Dictionary" by Gideon Wurdz, published in 1904, there is an entry at "pro and con" letting us know that these are prefixes of opposite meanings as in "progress and congress'. Maybe what Lou has discovered isn't very new after all. Ec

Marc Riddell wrote: on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now. A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question. Ray, the questions you raise here are crucial ones, but I believe a discussion of them here goes beyond the scope of this List. If you would like to discuss them privately, I would be open to it; if they were asked rhetorically ­ you have given us much to ponder. Yes! Marc Riddell

Marc Riddell wrote: >>>>> This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the >>>> leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not >>>> respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this >>>> in person, face to face? >>>>>>>> on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: >>>> What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is >>> only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression >>> that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our >>> activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere. >>Marc Riddell wrote: >> What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to >> drive home for some time now. >>> A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of >> "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at >> large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can >> you trust?" becomes the pervading question. on 6/21/07 4:55 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote: Not "structure" in the classic stone and concrete sense; but, rather, a structure originally and specifically designed and created to suit the spirit of the Project. Common ground? ­ Absolutely! Because I believe we would be (and are) both working toward a common end. > 1. There needs to be a "rules committee" to thread its way through the > swamp of rules creep. I am not committed to that name; if there is a > better name that beter reflects reality that's great. Let's just > consider "rules committee" to be a provisional discussion title. A > rules committee would make rules itself. It could synthesize a proposed > wording from all the variations that might be offered, present that to > the relevant community for adoption or rejection, and monitor the > acceptance process.. This is a particularly wide mandate. One of the > earliest issues that it would need to consider would be the extent of > its own mandate, and a general review of the rule making process. Key > to its duties would be to insure that seemingly small and unnoticed > changes to the rules do not unexpectedly become a problem long after > they are made. It could begin to apply a form of stable versioning to > policy. > 2. The presence of a firwall between the activities of the Foundation > and of each of its projects needs to be made clear. It is impossible to > guarantee that all activities on all projects will be legal. This is > not said to promote illegality. In a context of multiple languages and > uncertain legal interpretations on an international scale there will > always be doubts. Unduly rigid views of the law stifle creativity; > unduly flexible views breed disrespect. At the same time two distinct > projects can arrive at a different analysis of the same problem.. > Anyone who tries to choose which is correct falls into the same trap. > With a firewall the Foundation would abjure the right to _decide_ what > is legal in any project. It's action on content would be strictly in > accordance with the requirements of the law. If it receives a proper > takedown order it takes things down. Otherwise it knows nothing about > it. To some, this may seem maddeningly literal, but that's what makes > firewalls work. What a project does about the same material is its own > business, but it is entirely within its rights to have rules that are > stricter than what the law may allow. > 3. With project autonomy each project has the right to be run by a gang > of absolute idiots, but one should not assume that another project will > submit itself to the same brand of idiocy. There can be Meta level > rules, but these need to be kept to a minimum. The concept of NPOV is a > good meta level rule, as is a consistent use of Wiki markup. A rules > committee could very well propose the same policy for two or more > projects, but there is no requirement that they would all need to adopt > that proposal. Thank you. This is exactly the type of thinking I have been trying to encourage the Community to engage in. But, before any real, worthwhile planning takes place there needs to be an agreement, beyond just you and me, that such planning is needed. It is going to take you, and others with your degree of credibility in this Project, to encourage and fuel the debate. I feel like a meteorologist trying to warn the citizenry of an impending hurricane; but finding the majority of these citizens are looking out of the windows of their own secure structures and saying, "Huh, the sky looks clear to me". > One point remains: When you hear someone say, "Trust me," it triggers a > flight response. Given that premise, one can hardly make the same request. As to the issue of trust: To me the phrase "I trust you" is just the beginning of a complete sentence. What is really being said is "I trust you not to harm me". Likewise, "Trust me" is really "Trust me not to harm you". That's powerful! But for you to have this power, I must first grant it to you. But in the context and medium we are engaged in here, what power would I really have, and what harm could I possibly do you? I encourage everyone working in this Project to stop and really think about this. One of the greatest things we can all take away from having been a part of this Project, is the learning and experience of having worked constructively with another person. Marc Riddell -- "Come to the edge. We might fall! Come to the edge. It's too high! COME! TO! THE! EDGE!! So they came and he pushed -- and they flew." Guillaume Apollinaire

on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com wrote: David, Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates, place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how about grouping them in their own Project? Marc

There is another problem with using the projects as core organizing points.A lot of them are organized around interest in a particular controversial subject, and therefore present POV issues. I imagine that most Christianity project members are Christians, and that most Anglican project members are Anglicans, and so forth. And then we get to the LDS project and the LGBT project and we would end up with, um, problems. (Not to mention REALLY sending Merkey of on a tear.)

On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:52:42AM -0400, The Mangoe wrote: I think this is overly pessamistic and does not agree with my experience. People who form a Project that invariably will attract people who "belong" in the sense you suggest, step over backwards to ensure that their local guidelines fit the core policies. They are often more critical of articles on non-notable topics than other editors might be. I think we should all accept good faith here. I much bigger problem is the way some editors who do not understand the topic really muck up the article. They can join a Project but the Project will sort them out. Bduke -- Brian Salter-Duke b_duke(a)bigpond.net.au [[User:Bduke]] mainly on en:Wikipedia. Also on fr: Wikipedia, Meta-Wiki and Wikiversity

On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: This is much in accordance with what I am inadequately expressing. A couple of times here people have used "assume good faith" not in cause of civility, but in what amounts to making statements about human nature. In that wise we cannot afford it; a more realistic level of pessimism is called for.

The Mangoe wrote: "Assume good faith" has a very broad application., but like any assumption is rebuttable. Statements about human nature are subject to the assumption as much as any other. Many such statements reflect the culture that a person comes from. Something that is perfectly acceptable in one person's culture can sound outrageous in another. People use words differently as a recent discussion over the word "menial" showed; the derogatory overtones are only there in US usages of the word. Assuming good faith requires that we attempt to understand where the speaker is coming from before taking ooffence to his comments. Ec

It can work the other way too--projects aren't closed. I've joined projects that i think are moving in undesirable ways for the sake of seeing and perhaps even modifying the arguments. If I know I have a different attitude than the great majority, I say so when I join. for example, I'm a member of both the Deletionism and the Incluclsion project, & I'm by no means alone in doing this. I see a good number of self-declared atheists in the various religion projects, and they are usually helpful--they can know about religion too. Many Christians are interested in Judaism, and vice versa. Although there are lots of little worlds in WP, they do mix. DGG On 6/25/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.

on 6/24/07 2:44 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com wrote: David, George, Ray, Mangoe Š ­ and all others concerned with the structure of Wikipedia, Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in my era) planning something from the ground up. Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else to do the same, I need to be taught some things: 1) Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating structure of the Project? 2) What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure? And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture. 3) Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the Project right now? 4) If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) ­ to whom would we present it for implementation? Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless natives. Marc Riddell

on 6/25/07 1:22 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com wrote: This may be where the role has evolved to, but is it the same as when it began? A person decides to begin a project of some kind. The planning involves the subject, focus and goals of that project; who will be the persons involved in that project; where the home base of the project will be; and the myriad of other practical details necessary to launch it. Key to this is how that project will be managed day to day - the human and institutional issues that could, if not dealt with, interfere with the primary purpose of the project. This oversight role, initially, would be filled by that founder, or someone he designates. But, whether by he, or this designee, this crucial role must exist if the project is to survive ­ much less thrive. Does such a day-to-day oversight role exist in today's Wikipedia; and, if so, who is filling it? Thanks, I¹m learning. Policy creation, revision and oversight; conflict management and resolution, to name just two. What difference does it make to the management of a project or organization whether the participants are volunteer or paid? ­ the focus must be on fulfilling the purpose and goals of that project. David, I wasn't responding directly to your last post; that is why I altered the subject heading. My purpose was to interrupt the dialogue with these basic questions ­ wanting to go back to the drawing board as it were. <snip> > it is a total failure at keeping all And this isn't an issue that needs to be dealt with now? Without these you don't have much of anything. Neither am I. The Project is only 6 years old ­ without direct management, this chaos will become catastrophe. David, if wanting to bring order to something is considered revolutionary, it doesn't say much for its present condition. What good is polishing a pair of shoes if the seams are in danger of coming apart? I see Wikipedia as a large research project, made up of many smaller, individual projects. The goal of the main project is to compile knowledge and to disseminate information. There is someone getting the word out about the project and assuring there is enough funding to sustain it. There are people managing the electronics and medium the project is utilizing. There are countless persons gathering and editing the information that is going into the Project. But, once again, who is actively overseeing all of this? Marc

on 6/26/07 3:00 AM, Michael Noda at michael.noda(a)gmail.com wrote: What you point out here is troubling to me as regards the future of the project. I agree, you certainly cannot control an active hurricane. You can only warn people to get out of its path and seek safer ground. Yes. Risk. Michael, I agree; your perception of the Project as organic is much closer to reality than my own. Wikipedia is organic: it is living, and it is growing. My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseeing the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise and, yes, authority, to keep it in check? Without such active oversight, this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument. I have asked this question many times on this List, but all I keep getting back from some very frequent and usually vocal contributors is either evasion or silence. Marc Riddell PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.

Eugene van der Pijll wrote: Yes. If a catchphrase is working, don't change it. I wouldn't go so far as to call the suggestion bland. Changing symbols involves unnecessary risks. Ec

on 7/5/07 3:05 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com wrote: I have deliberately not proposed a specific structure for the Project because I believe it is premature to do so. What must occur first is a discussion of whether such a restructuring is needed. If the majority of Members of the Community (starting with those on this List) believe the present structure is working, it would be a gross waste of time to propose the specific details of an alternative one. I have already articulated many times, in many posts, why I believe a rethinking of the Project's structure is needed. I am now asking what the rest of you think. What is your meaning here? Most creative persons do. A work of art is the artist's way of sorting out the chaos. What's needed is a structure that prevents this creative process from being stifled, and getting bogged down by bullshit. As are some of us "older people" too :-). And to show that an alternative can succeed ­ and thrive. At present, the Wikipedia Project is not a user-friendly environment. It is the survival of the fittest. I would like to see it be the survival of the best. Marc

On 7/5/07, David Goodman &lt;dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I would disagree that people on the project like chaos, or with the idea that the project is really chaos. Real chaos were some of the unmoderated Usenet newsgroups back in the day, or IRC in its wilder days. WP as a project is... the largest most active focused online open community project to date. It's hard to say that we're chaotic, or attract people who like it that way... we have little to compare it to. What you can compare it with, other online communities, have similar or worse records. What I will agree with is that we keep running into areas that the current semi-structured semi-unstructured organically grown management model does badly. That's nothing new; all online communities and projects hit things like this. We have idiosyncratic reactions to those, but so have all the other projects and communities before. I both agree and disagree that we're poorly suited to write the 21st century equivalent to Britannica 9. I agree that we're poorly suited to just sit down and coherently write a world-class reference source. But we're effectively evolving one. The whole open wiki reference idea works. It probably shouldn't, but we are stumbling towards goodness. It can work better. But it is working. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Marc Riddell wrote: No one, and everyone. (How's that for evasiveness? :-) ) Both the Foundation issuing a pronouncement, and the newbie anon editor reverting vandalism as one of his/her first edits, are keeping growth in check, each exercising authority in their own ways. A good analogy is the anthill; the ant society as a whole behaves more intelligently than any individual ant. You're not going to find some superbrainy ant secretly directing things, instead the intelligence emerges solely from the interactions of ants that each have only a handful of neurons. It's a hard concept to get one's head around, especially for those who've been trained in reductionist analysis. What, you have a crystal ball? This particular experiment has never been tried on this scale before, and it's been far more successful than even many of the optimists imagined. While there are reasons to be concerned, I don't think you have any hard evidence that things will go any particular way in the future. Stan

On 26/06/07, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: And I should say I'd prefer keeping the current "The Free Encyclopedia", as in free content - because that's an important thing distinguishing us from one failed past Internet collaborative knowledge-gathering exercise, the [[Open Directory Project]] - which is not quite dead but is largely moribund, because when the corporation no longer cared much and the community failed it was impossible to fork and start over. Wikipedia will survive its community or corporate organisation failing, even if not in particularly good health. - d.

On 26/06/07, The Mangoe &lt;the.mangoe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Brockhaus is using MediaWiki for one of its online encyclopedias. Certainly. Wikipedia is better than a Google search, and it's certainly better than a Britannica you don't have to hand on your desk. - d.

David Gerard wrote: And it's even better than that, because nine times out of ten it's your Google search, too.

Marc Riddell wrote: While you are absolutely right that it is an area in need of reform, I think too that it is more important to focus on what happens when things go right than on what to do when things go wrong. This does not diminish the importance of these processes, but they do have a tendency to draw people's attention away from fundamental objectives. This is akin to a community that wants to build better jails instead of better schools. In the recent discussion on the use of proxies it was argued that strong measures should be taken because it was conceived that wrong-doers _could_ avail themselves of potential security holes. A tremendous amount of energy could be devoted to that sort of thing, and leave us very little further ahead. Problem people can only be dealt with by reference to what we accept as right. Maybe we need a Wikiproject:Discipline along the lines of other Wikiprojects, but I'm not prepared to say that that's the only way to go with this. Whatever is done in this direction must still fit in with a broader picture where it must also be accountable. Ec

Marc Riddell wrote: You could say so. I would hate to experience the office politics of such a company. They might not even have time to get any real work done. ;-) Ec