Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 10/01/2008, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
The WMF mostly provides a behind-the-scenes service to keep the servers running, and many people would be perfectly happy if the WMF never, ever got involved in the governance of individual projects. When the WMF does get involved, many participants wonder: "Why are you messing with MY work."
And yet at the same time, the Foundation is also called upon to intervene in many controversies and issues, sometimes appropriately but often inappropriately. For example I have seen several critics of English Wikipedia culture chastise the Foundation for not acting in some way to improve it, but few Wikimedians would consider that appropriate, I think. Also copyright issues. They are a bit damned if they do and damned if they don't.
More than a bit! I think that it reflects a very common human phenomenon. Despite their support for more democratic systems, most people are happier when they are told what to do. For the majority having a template to define a task means that they can feel happy that they are accomplishing something when they fill in the blanks about something within the sense of order that the template provides. For them someone who tinkers with a template in order to "improve" it is a disorienting influence.
For many of us who like to improve things it's hard to imagine why these lumpen masses never want to participate in the cut and thrust of decision making. It can get worse when you consider social, content and technical improvements are often at odds with each other.
When someone asks the Foundation to intervene on a fine point of copyright they are often looking for a simplistic answer to a complex question. In reality that question is as resolvable as the three-body problem in physics. For the most part the WMF's answer should be, "Solve your own damn problems!" Even the WikiCouncil will need to take such a stand if it is to respect the autonomy of the individual projects. Since intervention is exceptional, such exceptions are best to be clearly defined.
BTW I can not think of too many occasions where the Foundation *has* intervened with the governance of individual projects. The only one that comes to mind is the closure of fr.wq and I didn't even see a single person criticise the way that was handled. There was a lot of discussion about the licensing policy but I didn't see anyone suggest that it was inappropriate for the Foundation to do what it did.
I think that much of that has been with an it's-not-my-problem attitude. We can be aware that something is happening in fr.wq or more recently in ru-wb, but even someone who is a frequent contributor to this list limits the topics in which he gets involved. I simply have no basis for judging anyone's actions in those incidents. I can see where establishing how to deal with such matters would come under WikiCouncil's jurisdiction.
Ec