On 02/06/14 20:14, Andy Mabbett wrote:
On 2 June 2014 19:39, Ed Erhart
<the.ed17(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There is one person in charge of making the final
calls of every issue—me.
This is troubling, Wikipedia is supposed to be an open,
community-driven initiative.
We've seen problems in the past with single-person gatekeepers; at
TFA, for instance.
Not that I'm casting aspersions, but you may be indisposed, and a
future "keyholder" may turn out to be rogue.
It was an unfortunate error that I did not give
the password to
other trusted Signposters, but as Pine says, that is no longer the case.
That, at
least, is reassuring.
Wikipedia is exactly that, an open, community-driven initiative. This is
why when something needs doing, in many cases any random bloke can come
in and do it - the {{sofixit}} narrative. Of course, as a result, things
are also often not necessarily as well-organised as they perhaps could
be, and there may only be a single person involved, but why should this
be a problem when such is only the beginning?
Most nothing will be well-organised at first, but as time goes on, as a
project matures and others join in, problems come to light and are
fixed. If an initial lack of organisation or a potentiality for issues
down the road were considered a barrier to doing stuff, nothing would
ever get done. We certainly wouldn't have a Wikipedia.
I'd say that what has happened here has if anything been a good example
of that the process really does work, and I'd like to thank those
involved for taking the initiative to keep things running smoothly. This
is what keeps all the projects running, when you get right down to it.
-I