Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
I substantially agree, and would put a handful of fundamental principles well above practice or process. Those principles carry over to other projects. The establishment of Wiktionary was a natural evolution from the semi-fundamental principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That established a boundary for the new project without putting into doubt any of Wikipedia's other principles.
Stasis is a high level violation of the principle of non-ownership. We tell would-be editors that their work may be edited mercilessly, and proceed with such edits. It's easier to do when there is so little at stake, as in the case of a single article. The assets needed to run Wikimedia are no longer insignificant. Things have gone well beyond a single server in San Diego. With that growth has come the motherly perception that the assets need to be protected, and that a socio-legal framework needs to be built in support of that framework. Security begs for static practices.
Mothers protect their children; they do not own them. There's a price paid from the soul when the mother has to stand her neatly cleaned-up offspring in front of the nice corporation hoping that a little candy will trickle down.
Democratic communities are about empowerment. That empowerment comes from a belief in one's own self. At a governmental level it does not happen simply from the actions of an invader who makes pompous promises about binging democracy. Belief in oneself is always more difficult in societies where the citizens are schooled into compliance from an early age. I can't think of a single society where that does not happen.
It's hard to identify the tipping point where the participatory community moves over to become the protected community.
Maybe we just need more forks. Thus far we have had mirrors, but imagine if one or more of those mirrors decided that from some point in time it would no longer copy Wikipedia content, but would allow its users to edit directly on that site. The effect on subjects that are prone to NPOV battles could be interesting. Probably the combined result of all such edits might be even more neutral. Neutralizing the effects of ownership could be even more wiki.
Ec