On 02/06/14 20:14, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 2 June 2014 19:39, Ed Erhart the.ed17@gmail.com wrote:
There is one person in charge of making the final calls of every issue—me.
This is troubling, Wikipedia is supposed to be an open, community-driven initiative.
We've seen problems in the past with single-person gatekeepers; at TFA, for instance.
Not that I'm casting aspersions, but you may be indisposed, and a future "keyholder" may turn out to be rogue.
It was an unfortunate error that I did not give the password to other trusted Signposters, but as Pine says, that is no longer the case.
That, at least, is reassuring.
Wikipedia is exactly that, an open, community-driven initiative. This is why when something needs doing, in many cases any random bloke can come in and do it - the {{sofixit}} narrative. Of course, as a result, things are also often not necessarily as well-organised as they perhaps could be, and there may only be a single person involved, but why should this be a problem when such is only the beginning?
Most nothing will be well-organised at first, but as time goes on, as a project matures and others join in, problems come to light and are fixed. If an initial lack of organisation or a potentiality for issues down the road were considered a barrier to doing stuff, nothing would ever get done. We certainly wouldn't have a Wikipedia.
I'd say that what has happened here has if anything been a good example of that the process really does work, and I'd like to thank those involved for taking the initiative to keep things running smoothly. This is what keeps all the projects running, when you get right down to it.
-I