On 6/14/06, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united in practice.
I see it the other way around. For me, the key concept that has enabled the success of Wikipedia is "within our goal (to create an encyclopedia), maximize participation, transparency and accountability". This means that we accept certain control mechanisms, such as page protection and the notion of admins, as necessary to protect the encyclopedia, at least until better solutions are found.
I believe Wikimedia would be well served by following the same _principle_, using different _practices_ which are appropriate for an organization (taking into account, for instance, the legal requirements and risks an organization faces; certain tasks require certain minimum qualifications, etc.). I also view this, in both cases, as a never-ending _process_, rather than a permanent state. If either Wikipedia or Wikimedia become static in their practices, it is time to think about replacing them.
This same view is applicable to the other projects: what is an appropriate practice for Wikipedia is not necessarily so for Wikinews or Wiktionary. Again, within each project's defined mission, we should seek to optimize the above key variables. This is what I call the "wiki philosophy", and it is independent from any particular implementation or scenario. This philsophy, I feel, is universal.
Erik