Although, on his user page he says that the mailing list is the place to
discuss the nature of Wikipedia. That seems a bit strange to me though - I
am quite sure that the volume of discussion about the nature of Wikipedia in
talk pages and meta pages vastly outweighs the discussions on the mailing
lists, and has a greater influence of people's behavior, and wiki-policy.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Brian <Brian.Mingus(a)colorado.edu> wrote:
I believe the point that Jimbo is making (i will
certainly be corrected if
wrong :-) is that there is no externally imposed hierarchy. The wiki really
did start as a tabula rasa, and all discussions of its hierarchy can be
found in its pages.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Rigg <jamesrigg1974(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales
<jwales(a)wikia-inc.com>
wrote:
James Rigg wrote:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
No, not at all.
But there isn't full transparency, and there is a hierarchy.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
You have successfully failed!
--
You have successfully failed!