Jimmy
It is my intention that we be very very careful in this process to
preserve our fundamentally community-driven model,
while at the same time adding professionalism to the organization in order
to empower and defend the community model. :)
preserve or reaffirm ?
Jimmy
Among Brad's duties will be to assist in co-ordinating and managing that
search process,
in conjunction with the board and community leaders of all kinds.
leaders or members ?
Jimmy
it is my intention to build upon and extend our radical methods of
openness and community involvement,
This is the best statement I heard from you since eight days, when you said "Under promise over deliver" I quoted you on that one every day since. :)
------------------------------------
Urgent matters obviously need to be resolved now. In Rome emergencies were also addressed by subsiding democracy and *appointing* a dictator for half a year (the meaning of the term dictator has drifted quite far since then). I'm not sure if 'business deals' count as an emergency. We are not going bankrupt, have even postponed fund raising. Apart from that I easily accept that an understaffed central board is in need of speedy reinforcement, as long as the current model is continued.
After we catered for emergencies, I still hope that the same community that wisely elected Angela and Anthere (hurray for them) will some day be given more direct responsibility in deciding how to resolve deficiencies at the organisational level. To me a community and a foundation are not separate entities ( I heard this as a closing argument all too often recently ), no more than a people and its government are separate entities. A government serves the people and is guided and controlled by the people. I'm not an expert in political matters, but I feel it makes more sense to draw our metaphores from an area of human activity where many are to gain from the actions of some (state/governement) than from areas where some are to gain much more than others from the activities of many (large corporations).
Having said this I am sure Brad is going to give us his best, and undoubtly already has, so I wish you all the best, Brad
Erik Zachte
Erik Zachte wrote:
It is my intention that we be very very careful in this process to preserve our fundamentally community-driven model, while at the same time adding professionalism to the organization in order to empower and defend the community model. :)
preserve or reaffirm ?
Both!
Among Brad's duties will be to assist in co-ordinating and managing that search process, in conjunction with the board and community leaders of all kinds.
leaders or members ?
Both!
Urgent matters obviously need to be resolved now. In Rome emergencies were also addressed by subsiding democracy and *appointing* a dictator for half a year (the meaning of the term dictator has drifted quite far since then).
There is no dictator here.
After we catered for emergencies, I still hope that the same community that wisely elected Angela and Anthere (hurray for them) will some day be given more direct responsibility in deciding how to resolve deficiencies at the organisational level. To me a community and a foundation are not separate entities ( I heard this as a closing argument all too often recently ), no more than a people and its government are separate entities. A government serves the people and is guided and controlled by the people. I'm not an expert in political matters, but I feel it makes more sense to draw our metaphores from an area of human activity where many are to gain from the actions of some (state/governement) than from areas where some are to gain much more than others from the activities of many (large corporations).
I agree completely. I resist very strongly any separation of foundation and community.
On 6/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I agree completely. I resist very strongly any separation of foundation and community.
How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united in practice. I am aware it sounds very inclining to a certain cultural background, but still daresay this idea itself can be applied to many cases, specially we need to cooperate with each other.
Separation itself is nothing wrong. Separation without communication nor collaboration is bad, or useless at best, assuredly.
If there is no separation, we require never two words or concepts: in practice the community isn't involved into a certain matter which the foundation cares for, and vice versa, I assume. If that sounds too metaphisical or awkward, we might need another terminology, like distinction, instead of separation.
On 6/14/06, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/13/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I agree completely. I resist very strongly any separation of foundation and community.
How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united in practice. I am aware it sounds very inclining to a certain cultural background, but still daresay this idea itself can be applied to many cases, specially we need to cooperate with each other.
Separation itself is nothing wrong. Separation without communication nor collaboration is bad, or useless at best, assuredly.
If there is no separation, we require never two words or concepts: in practice the community isn't involved into a certain matter which the foundation cares for, and vice versa, I assume. If that sounds too metaphisical or awkward, we might need another terminology, like distinction, instead of separation.
Thank you for that. This is exactly what I think we should tend towards.
Delphine
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.
Erik
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org