I think most of us contribute as we feel that this is our encyclopedia. This is especially true for those not being paid but I am sure it also applies to those on staff as well. An us versus them mentality does not add anything. We are all here for one main purpose " to write the best encyclopedia we can ". I do not like the idea of patting ourselves on the back just because we are doing a great job compared to a standard corporation / business. Wikipedia is not a standard business and that is why it works. That software cannot be written using the same open format as Wikipedia has been proved false by both Linux and Firefox. I think Bold, Revert, Discuss can be used at all levels and that stifling discussion is never appropriate. I do agree that sometimes one needs to implemented the change to create something to discuss ( see the first word of the three above ).
James Heilman wrote:
I think most of us contribute as we feel that this is our encyclopedia. This is especially true for those not being paid but I am sure it also applies to those on staff as well. An us versus them mentality does not add anything. We are all here for one main purpose " to write the best encyclopedia we can ".
Some people are here to write a dictionary. Or free textbooks. Or... whatever it is that Wikiversity has set out to do. These projects have been largely overlooked by the Wikipedia Usability Initiative, for better or worse. Though, in a discussion about communication between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation, it is helpful to remember that there are a large number of projects other than Wikipedia, something that the Wikimedia Foundation itself often (intentionally) overlooks.
I do agree with your larger point that an "us vs. them" mentality serves no one. The Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the projects. That point needs to be made explicit in everything it does. If there's ever doubt on that point, something isn't working as it should.
MZMcBride
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org