. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . till we *) . . .
Sorry to say this,
but the RfA proposal as well as your proposal last week (about user
names) all sound the same for me: we are big, so we need more
bureaucracy. One of the unique selling points of wikipedia -- so to say
-- is in my eyes that wikipedia works as a fairly big community with a
fairly low amount of rules, bureaucratics, politics and organisational
overhead. Why change this more or less anarchy united with more or less
the same goal as long as it isn't necessary? And wouldn't it be better
to introduce rules, scores and regulation at the moment they become
necessary, but not early, creating something like self-fulfing
prophecies? If you treat wikipedia as a bureaucratic organisation, it
will start to become one.
Regards,
Till
__ .
/ / / / ... Till Westermayer - till we *)
. .
. mailto:till@tillwe.de .
www.westermayer.de/till/ . icq 320393072
. Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761 55697152 . 0160 96619179
. . . . .