On 7/29/2013 1:50 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jan Ainali
<jan.ainali(a)wikimedia.se>
wrote:
I have not read the vision statement as it is the
production of knowledge
that need be availible to every human being, but the consumption.
Actually, having
co-drafted the Vision Statement (it was drafted at
the October 2006 Board retreat in Frankfurt and then finalized after
community discussion), I can assure you that that was not the intent.
I recall that Florence and I talked about that specific aspect a fair
bit. We proposed the language "share in" over "given free access to"
in order to emphasize that it's not a one-directional process (some
treasure trove of knowledge that you are given access to), but a
process we are creating an opportunity to participate in. It could be
made clearer, but that was the intent.
In any case, I'm not sure why we'd
conclude that making the production of
knowledge more widely available is somehow harmful to the cause of making
the consumption of knowledge available to everyone. Because the success of
Wikipedia has been built on rather the opposite of that. In that context
which comes first, production or consumption, is sort of a
chicken-or-the-egg question about the origin of network effects.
Firstly, the
clarification from Erik is very valuable. Perhaps I am the
only one making that interpretation from the wording in the vision
statement, but if what Erik say is the intention is correct (and I have no
reason to think otherwise) it could perhaps be stressed further to let
everyone in the movement be aware of the importance.
Michael, I would not say we should conclude that it is harmful, rather I
would say (or at least, before Eriks clarification) that we would need to
justify why "democratization of production" as an end would be more
important than giving free access to the sum of all human knowledge.