Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the importance of transparency to any organisation, I did a search of this list of that term, and was a bit concerned by the following post in December 2007 by Jimmy Wales, who I understand (from his userpage) is the founder of Wikipedia:
"The Foundation is the most transparent organization that I know of, to the point of pathology sometimes. Ironically, that transparency breeds in some an expectation so high, that it is assumed that everything has to be discussed openly. Someone suggested to me the other day that internal-l and all private mailing lists should be closed, and all business conducted openly on the wiki. This is beyond nonsense, because it would push the Foundation to *less* transparency, not *more*."
I found this post particularly surprising because I had earlier read, and been excited by, the following 'statement of principles' on Mr Wales' user page:
"Wikipedia's success to date is entirely a function of our open community."
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the case.
All best wishes
James
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.
No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.
I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the case.
All best wishes
James
Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have any more right to edit any given article than any other but some newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.
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?
Best
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats. Debates between judges for wikimania. Complaints about libelous content in wikipedia. Probably pay negotiations.
No wikimedia isn't the world's most transparent organisation but we can accept that jimbo didn't know that when he made his statement.
I also read somewhere that one of the founding principles of Wikipedia was that there would be no hierarchy. I appreciate that Citizendium has a hierarchy, but at least it's made very clear that this is the case.
All best wishes
James
Hierarchies are inevitable. In theory no constructive user should have any more right to edit any given article than any other but some newbie admins keep trying to mess with this. Beyond that there tend to be Hierarchies out of necessity (from admins to bureaucrats to stewards) But they should impact the basic editing process.
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
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?
Best
James
Not so much that--as a great many things are done openly. I think it's more a general agreement that some things, by their very nature, can't be done openly.
-Chad
That sounds a bit like a politician not wanting to admit that they've abandoned a policy or goal! ;)
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have been abandoned.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
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?
Best
James
Not so much that--as a great many things are done openly. I think it's more a general agreement that some things, by their very nature, can't be done openly.
-Chad _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have been abandoned.
Hello James,
Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty good at transparency.
Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any other regardless of access flags.
I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule; people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep telling them they're all equal.
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule; people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep telling them they're all equal.
I apologize in advance for focusing solely on the English language (non-simple) Wikipedia, but I find it completely contra-factual that the existing on-high powa-structure is in fact in the process of "keep telling them they're all equal."
And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness be renamed to something that bears even a passing familiarity to its actual function...
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness be renamed to something that bears even a passing familiarity to its actual function...
Yes, I had en-Wikipedia in mind when I said "it's the community itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule". I don't know whether it's anything particular about the English Wikipedia, or simply a function of it's community's size.
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation could or should be truly transparent, but I do think it is wrong for it to trade on the kudos of transparency when it is merely semi-transparent. And similarly for the claims I read of it being anti-hierarchical.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have been abandoned.
Hello James,
Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much as feasible public. I don't think anyone expects their employer to publish their pay negotiations or medical conditions, and I don't mind if there's no press release about the Executive Director's bad diarrhea day. Some aspects are less public than I would like (such as some committees' discussion), but overall the Foundation is pretty good at transparency.
Hierarchy is inevitable within the Foundation (the Board of Trustees naturally has more sway than the janitor); no hierarchy is an ideal for wiki communities, where no editor has more decision power than any other regardless of access flags.
I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule; people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you keep telling them they're all equal.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation could or should be truly transparent, but I do think it is wrong for it to trade on the kudos of transparency when it is merely semi-transparent. And similarly for the claims I read of it being anti-hierarchical.
I think it may be worth drawing a distinction between the Foundation and the work product.
Wikipedia, for example, engages in radical transparency [1] to a high degree of approximation. Every change to every article is recorded and open for review. Every discussion about every article is likewise recorded. And any individual has the right to question why anything was done.
I would say that the wiki process strives to be fully transparent.
The Foundation on the other hand is not as open, but it is certainly more transparent than your average corporation. Whether one wants to describe that as "translucent", "semi-transparent", or "transparent" strikes me as mostly a semantic distinction (i.e. an argument over how transparent is good enough for each word to apply).
The more important thing to take-away though is that the Foundation does shoot for a culture of "openness, communication, and accountability" [2], even if it is not always up to the "radical transparency" standards that some people would want.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_transparency [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_(behavior)
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
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?
Suggested reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
Precis: if you pretend hierarchies don't spontaneously form, they'll form out of your sight and come to bite you in the arse.
- d.
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
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?
Suggested reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessness.html
Precis: if you pretend hierarchies don't spontaneously form, they'll form out of your sight and come to bite you in the arse.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
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?
I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still remain almost 100% transparent and non-hierachical in a sense that everyone can edit and admins have rather organising and cleanig tools but they have no special power to decide the shape of content. But this is not necesarily about Wikimedia Foundation itself which is real life organization and has to cope with financial and legal issues. I think it is obvious that legal threats, most of financial decissions and most of technical issues has to be maintained by hired professional and maiking such decision by open discussions voting could lead to a disaster. However, indeed there is a tendency in Foundation to move many decission to "secret bodies" without any good reason. Among others, IMHO the big mistake was to move decisions of closing and opening projects (except it is forced by legal problems) to language committee, which was theoretically created as an advisory body only and making all process secret.
This 'principle':
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be a departure from this.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
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?
I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still remain almost 100% transparent and non-hierachical in a sense that everyone can edit and admins have rather organising and cleanig tools but they have no special power to decide the shape of content. But this is not necesarily about Wikimedia Foundation itself which is real life organization and has to cope with financial and legal issues. I think it is obvious that legal threats, most of financial decissions and most of technical issues has to be maintained by hired professional and maiking such decision by open discussions voting could lead to a disaster. However, indeed there is a tendency in Foundation to move many decission to "secret bodies" without any good reason. Among others, IMHO the big mistake was to move decisions of closing and opening projects (except it is forced by legal problems) to language committee, which was theoretically created as an advisory body only and making all process secret.
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James Rigg wrote:
This 'principle':
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be a departure from this.
As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects.
The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages.
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Alex mrzmanwiki@gmail.com wrote:
James Rigg wrote:
This 'principle':
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of Wikipedia."
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be a departure from this.
As has been said, certain things require privacy, if not by law, by common sense or courtesy. Obviously things like CheckUser data can't be discussed in public and making things like emails to OTRS and oversight-l public would greatly reduce their usefulness to the projects.
The biggest departure from that principle is that most of the day-to-day running isn't done on the mailing lists, mostly everything at the project-level is done on-wiki on discussion pages.
-- Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
Tens of thousands of active editors a month. That such a thing could run without bureaucracy defies rational thought.
Also, you can't actually stop people talking amongst themselves. See "Tyranny of Structurelessness."
- d.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
Tens of thousands of active editors a month. That such a thing could run without bureaucracy defies rational thought.
Also, you can't actually stop people talking amongst themselves. See "Tyranny of Structurelessness."
- d.
First, I actually began the email to which you are replying with: "I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical..."
Second, re tens of thousands of editors requiring a bureaucracy, again, that may, or may not, be true, but the point I'm simply making here is that I've *recently* read in several different places that Wikipedia *is* non-hierarchical, when this isn't true. For example, Jimmy Wales states on his user page:
"There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure..."
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
James,
The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.
People here have given you several examples of the types of Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think the point has been well-made that there are certain types of information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples.
How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.
Teresa
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia sfmammamia@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way.
James,
The flaw I see with your statement above, and indeed with your original post is that you seem to conflate "the Foundation" with "Wikipedia". The original quote you made from Jimmy Wales was about the Foundation, the second quote was about Wikipedia.
People here have given you several examples of the types of Foundation-related exchanges that should not be done publicly. I think the point has been well-made that there are certain types of information, discussions, and decision-making processes within the Foundation that cannot be public and transparent. In fact, the Foundation has privacy policies that bind it to keep some matters private and confidential. I thought you accepted those examples.
How transparently Wikipedia is run, by its volunteer community, is a separate matter. Please remembe that the Foundation keeps an arm-length relationship from its projects in how they are run.
Teresa
Please see my previous reply to David Gerard.
Also, people here have equally given me examples of how *Wikipedia* is run in a non-transparent way that they are *not*happy about.
James Rigg wrote:
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be a departure from this.
Departure from what? From your original imagination, or from some policy that was posted (where? when? citation needed!).
Do you publish every private e-mail and phone call you receive? That is what "total" transparency would mean, and nobody wants that. It would block every kind of communication.
The employees and board members of the foundation can send private e-mail between themselves, and they can use the internal mailing list. Both are closed forms of communication, and if the list wasn't there, private e-mail would be used instead. You're not making that information more open by closing the internal mailing list.
If you want improved transparency from the Wikimedia Foundation, you need to provide real examples of types of information that you want access to, that you fail to find today. You will never be able to get "everything".
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@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.
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans, its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in working on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing lists that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its plans, its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in working on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in short order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles.
Best, parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion -
the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live
up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock
you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in
short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins parkerhiggins@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles.
Best, parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion -
the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live
up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock
you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in
short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
James
Again, Wikipedia or the Foundation? and which Wikipedia? Not all wikipedias have the same rulesets, only principles
James,
Not to get all mechanistic on you, but the fact that you posted to the Foundation list is part of the confusion as well. The focus here is on the Foundation. If you have concerns specifically about the English Wikipedia's transparency, that's really fodder for a different discussion list.
Sfmammamia
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com wrote:
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins parkerhiggins@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to run an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that realities of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully acknowledged, but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality, it doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't represent a deviation from founding principles.
Best, parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion -
the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live
up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock
you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to the community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki, with complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all discussion precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund raising model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery. Every major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead of time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list describing what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a response from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in
short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any other corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as transparent and non-hierarchical. Some of that is Wikimedia's PR, a lot of that is just public perception. Most people look at the claim of transparency and non-hierarchical and presume it to mean within the boundaries of reason. If you're not willing to make that jump, then no amount of people telling you that they made it will help. And I expect that you'll be similarly disappointed by many other products and organizations that don't explicitly add the caveat of reasonability to their attributes.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!
And perhaps this is the best solution!
Best, Parker
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Parker Higgins parkerhiggins@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making
it
hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those
virtues
to the boundaries of common sense. That difference, between the absolute and the common sense, strikes you as disingenuous.
Everybody else seems to be saying that Wikimedia only ever intended to
run
an organization in a manner consistent with common sense, and that
realities
of how Wikimedia is run are not, in fact, at odds with the founding principles, nor have the founding principles been abandoned.
I will acknowledge that it seems your point hasn't been fully
acknowledged,
but I don't think it's a very strong point. Perhaps the phrase, "to the extent possible" has been omitted from some explanations of Wikimedia's commitment to transparency and equality, but I don't think that has decreased the overall clarity. Yes, Wikimedia is not absolutely transparent, and yes, I know you know that. But considering that nobody realistically expected or expects the organization to be absolutely transparent and equal, as that would come at the cost of functionality,
it
doesn't really make sense to complain about that. And it doesn't
represent
a deviation from founding principles.
Best, parker
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:53 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.comwrote:
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency, and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the *stated* principles of transparency and no hierarchy.
Nowhere in this thread have I stated that this is a good or bad thing in relation to Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to
statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion
the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't
live
up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't
shock
you.
The English Wikipedia is quite transparent, more so than perhaps any community or organizational structure I've encountered. Only mailing
lists
that regularly deal with personal, private information are closed to
the
community. Nearly all decision making of any weight is done on-wiki,
with
complete access for anyone who wants it to all or mostly all
discussion
precursors.
The Wikimedia Foundation is a business, and by the standards of modern business it is also quite transparent. Its financial information, its
plans,
its employee roster, its job descriptions, its revenue and fund
raising
model and its long term goals are all available for your discovery.
Every
major decision that impacts the projects is discussed publicly ahead
of
time. That *is* transparency, in my opinion.
When someone who self describes as a "newbie" that has not joined in
working
on the Wikimedia projects posts to the Foundation mailing list
describing
what he believes to be a material mischaracterisation, he gets a
response
from the founder and the deputy director (and former board member) in
short
order. Try doing that with General Electric, or really nearly any
other
corporation in the world.
Your e-mails indicate that you concluded first and asked second, so hopefully you will now reconsider.
Nathan _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
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@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@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwales@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- You have successfully failed!
James Rigg wrote:
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?
This presumes that such abandonment was a conscious act. Apparent abandonment tends to happen by default.
Ec
James Rigg wrote:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Contract negotiations. Personnel issues. Things of that nature, for starters.
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the importance of transparency to any organisation
I am increasingly concluding that the concept of organizational transparency can only be fully understood if one considers the concept of organizational responsiveness an important accompanying principle (whether one believes this to be an inherent subset of transparency or not). I consider them separate: it is possible to publish organizational internals but to never engage in dialogue; it is possible to engage in dialogue but to not publish facts.
Moreover, I believe that in order to best serve the public interest, both principles are necessary. Transparency, by itself, can facilitate necessary organizational changes if organizational flaws are made visible through media and the legal system. This, typically, only affects the deepest organizational flaws, and if the organization is not itself responsive to questions regarding its general practices, it is meaningless for most practical purposes. Moreover, poorly articulated raw information can lead to damaging misunderstandings which remain uncorrected.
As a practical example, we spent a lot of time this year drafting Q&As for documents like the Annual Plan and the Audited Financial Statements, to help people understand the meaning thereof. In addition, we are actively engaged in discussions like this one: many staff members and Board members participate in mailing lists with stakeholders (some of those lists are open to the general public, some of them have principles under which access is granted).
In this basic understanding, it's important to recognize that an organization's ability to respond to questions is not unlimited. In fact, it is highly limited (which was exactly the point of the phrase "23-people-organization" in an earlier e-mail of mine). While most people understand this principle in theory, in practice, any individual petitioner will often feel that surely their argument is important enough, surely their e-mail or request significant enough, to be heard and carefully responded to. When this is not the actual outcome, they will feel deeply injured by this neglect. That is human nature from the cradle to the grave.
An organization's ability to publish information in any meaningful fashion (i.e. with explanations that make it actually useful) is, of course, equally limited. With thousands of people taking an interest in organizational affairs, it is almost inevitable that some question will not have been anticipated, and some fact will not have been published.
Where an organization's limits are is partially determined by its overall human bandwidth, and partially by its allocation of internal resources to publishing information and responding to stakeholders. Does every staff member spend one hour a day on it? 4 hours? 8 hours? Ultimately the organization must weigh the public service it performs through its actual work against the important, but separate, function of talking about it.
Finally, there are limits to transparency which are not just defensible but in fact ethically necessary (privacy of individual human beings) or simply practical (most businesses and organizations don't operate at very high levels of transparency, and an organization is not an island - it has to be able to deal with other people's expectations in a reasonable manner in order to function).
In sum, * I believe transparency and organizational responsiveness must go hand in hand; * both are limited by an organization's capacity and must be balanced with its other priorities; * both are further limited by both ethical and practical considerations.
Where the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, I consider it to be doing a pretty good job, but I hope we can publish and share even more information, and respond even more consistently, in the future. I know that WMF policies and documents, even its fundraising pages, are used as examples and templates by other non-profits, and I'd love to see more of that happening.
I would be interested to hear about organizations that are weighing and using their own resources in a fashion that better serves the public interest. I don't think WMF is a fully mature organization yet - we've only just gone through a year of "growing up" - but I would love to see it collaborate with other organizations and OD experts in eventually developing and evolving sets of best practices for organizations which support purpose-driven communities.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1974@googlemail.com:
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the importance of transparency to any organisation
I am increasingly concluding that the concept of organizational transparency can only be fully understood if one considers the concept of organizational responsiveness an important accompanying principle (whether one believes this to be an inherent subset of transparency or not). I consider them separate: it is possible to publish organizational internals but to never engage in dialogue; it is possible to engage in dialogue but to not publish facts.
Moreover, I believe that in order to best serve the public interest, both principles are necessary. Transparency, by itself, can facilitate necessary organizational changes if organizational flaws are made visible through media and the legal system. This, typically, only affects the deepest organizational flaws, and if the organization is not itself responsive to questions regarding its general practices, it is meaningless for most practical purposes. Moreover, poorly articulated raw information can lead to damaging misunderstandings which remain uncorrected.
As a practical example, we spent a lot of time this year drafting Q&As for documents like the Annual Plan and the Audited Financial Statements, to help people understand the meaning thereof. In addition, we are actively engaged in discussions like this one: many staff members and Board members participate in mailing lists with stakeholders (some of those lists are open to the general public, some of them have principles under which access is granted).
In this basic understanding, it's important to recognize that an organization's ability to respond to questions is not unlimited. In fact, it is highly limited (which was exactly the point of the phrase "23-people-organization" in an earlier e-mail of mine). While most people understand this principle in theory, in practice, any individual petitioner will often feel that surely their argument is important enough, surely their e-mail or request significant enough, to be heard and carefully responded to. When this is not the actual outcome, they will feel deeply injured by this neglect. That is human nature from the cradle to the grave.
An organization's ability to publish information in any meaningful fashion (i.e. with explanations that make it actually useful) is, of course, equally limited. With thousands of people taking an interest in organizational affairs, it is almost inevitable that some question will not have been anticipated, and some fact will not have been published.
Where an organization's limits are is partially determined by its overall human bandwidth, and partially by its allocation of internal resources to publishing information and responding to stakeholders. Does every staff member spend one hour a day on it? 4 hours? 8 hours? Ultimately the organization must weigh the public service it performs through its actual work against the important, but separate, function of talking about it.
Finally, there are limits to transparency which are not just defensible but in fact ethically necessary (privacy of individual human beings) or simply practical (most businesses and organizations don't operate at very high levels of transparency, and an organization is not an island - it has to be able to deal with other people's expectations in a reasonable manner in order to function).
In sum,
- I believe transparency and organizational responsiveness must go hand in hand;
- both are limited by an organization's capacity and must be balanced
with its other priorities;
- both are further limited by both ethical and practical considerations.
Where the Wikimedia Foundation is concerned, I consider it to be doing a pretty good job, but I hope we can publish and share even more information, and respond even more consistently, in the future. I know that WMF policies and documents, even its fundraising pages, are used as examples and templates by other non-profits, and I'd love to see more of that happening.
I would be interested to hear about organizations that are weighing and using their own resources in a fashion that better serves the public interest. I don't think WMF is a fully mature organization yet
- we've only just gone through a year of "growing up" - but I would
love to see it collaborate with other organizations and OD experts in eventually developing and evolving sets of best practices for organizations which support purpose-driven communities.
Besides Erik's points with whom I generally agree, I want to say that James has the point (or, at least, I see that point).
First of all, it should be noted that Jimmy's statement is a political one. And according to his place at the Wikipedia and Wikimedia, it has significant value. But, AFAIK, Jimmy has just some formal powers at the English Wikipedia, which is the product of community's decision. In the vast majority of cases his real influence is comparable to any other Wiki[pm]edian. His statement is important (and I fully support it), but it has to be read in the sense of proclaimed wish, not in the sense of the rule.
But, James has the point related to gap between our (not just Jimmy's) perception of our work and our reality; something very close to doublethink. Because:
* Cabal doesn't exist, I may confirm that as someone who is following a number of private lists. * Elite exists. This is particularly visible at the projects. We are very close to the position when we will be denying this fact even it is an obvious truth. Becoming a part of "the elite" is becoming more and more harder. * Hierarchy exists, too. All over Wikimedia projects admins are able to do much more than they should be. Complaining about admin abuse by newcomers usually finishes somewhere in the corrupted nepotist system. * Structure exists and this is a not so bad thing. I would say that Jimmy wasn't enough precise about that.
I think that we need to do something before our structure becomes too bureaucratized. Anyone who lived in one of the former socialist states may confirm the path: from a great idea and friendly relations, via very friendly relations between some persons, to a dysfunctional and bizarre system. And, of course, doublethink was everywhere: Everybody have to eat, except the most are hungry; everybody are equal, but some are more equal...
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org