I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community is sometimes wrong; the board is sometimes right. I would rather go wrong with the community , than right with the board.T, there is no other way of preserving the values of independence and spontaneity which are the essence of our projects. The distinctiveness of Wikipedia is that we are a community-directed project, and no person or group--even groups of our own choosing-- has the authority to lead us. There are no doubt limitations of what such a mode of organization can achieve, but we are here to see how far we can get with this way of working; we have already gotten further than anyone could have predicted, and perhaps we can get much further. I do not have the knowledge to formally speculate about social organization. But what I do know is that we have an idea, and we should pursue it as far as it can take us. Perhaps conventional wisdom is wrong, and we can maintain ourselves as we originally intended. The idea is very simple, and classic: trust the community; trust each other; do not trust any organized group withing us or speaking for us.
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com> wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative will be bitterly resisted at every turn.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 27 August 2011 09:04, DGGenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com> wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative will be bitterly resisted at every turn.
I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community is sometimes wrong; the board is sometimes right. I would rather go wrong with the community , than right with the board.T, there is no other way of preserving the values of independence and spontaneity which are the essence of our projects. The distinctiveness of Wikipedia is that we are a community-directed project, and no person or group--even groups of our own choosing-- has the authority to lead us.
That's what I meant - plans for a special committee, and not a community decision, had somehow escaped my notice. That's just a ridiculously, amazingly, bad idea. The community is frequently on crack, but a special committee for this job can only be worse.
Is it in fact the case that the job is to be handed to a special committee? If so, who thought this was a good idea and why?
- d.
It is absolutely not part of the resolution, nor is it in the design plans that I've seen. My understanding is that it works like current categorization, in that anyone can participate.
pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Head of Reader Relations Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That's what I meant - plans for a special committee, and not a community decision, had somehow escaped my notice. That's just a ridiculously, amazingly, bad idea. The community is frequently on crack, but a special committee for this job can only be worse.
Is it in fact the case that the job is to be handed to a special committee? If so, who thought this was a good idea and why?
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 August 2011 09:04, DGGenwp@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com> wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative will be bitterly resisted at every turn.
I am not sure if your wording implies that I am being excessively negative or skeptical. But yes, I very definitely think it should be resisted at every stage of implementation. What else can we do, if the people who should be providing services to us, try to run things for us. the community is sometimes wrong; the board is sometimes right. I would rather go wrong with the community , than right with the board.T, there is no other way of preserving the values of independence and spontaneity which are the essence of our projects. The distinctiveness of Wikipedia is that we are a community-directed project, and no person or group--even groups of our own choosing-- has the authority to lead us.
That's what I meant - plans for a special committee, and not a community decision, had somehow escaped my notice. That's just a ridiculously, amazingly, bad idea. The community is frequently on crack, but a special committee for this job can only be worse.
Is it in fact the case that the job is to be handed to a special committee? If so, who thought this was a good idea and why?
- d.
This is the first I've heard of a special committee :) Not sure where that idea came from...
-- phoebe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org