I was thinking he meant subject areas, but you are right here.
The worst of all is that anyone who mentions the increasingly hierarchial structure of our communities and the virtual impunity afforded to certain persons (especially admins in medium-sized Wikis, who often rule like dictators), they are instantly perceived as anti-Wiki and/or paranoid.
The simple fact is, there _is_ a cabal now. In fact, there are multiple cabals. They just call themselves different things. The Board, Arbcom, etc. etc. etc., the number of admins now is so great that it really is almost like real life, where people are divided by class. Will people inherit admin accounts from their parents? (kidding... mostly)
Ever since I joined, the community has been moving more and more in this direction. I did not take things totally seriously here until it was suggested in a serious tone that if I were just a couple of years older, I should be _killed_ for the whole Zlatiborian fracas and that it was "people like me" who were responsible for the turbulent recent history of Southeast Europe.
Our community has faced several major trials, and we have pulled through all but (an early) one of them almost completely intact. However, I am afraid that will not always be the case. Although we're growing larger, it doesn't seem to me that we're growing much smarter, and I think we will end up with mass exoduses and large portions of our community breaking off and forming similarly-sized competing projects. I do not think this future is in the best interests of the movement, it does not fit our aims, surely divided we shall fall.
And I know most of you will blow this off as utter nonsense, you will say it's not going to happen, but if we continue on our present course I promise you it will for the wicked are among us and it is only a matter of time before the Wiki-empire falls into tiny pieces. Mark my words, in two months, six months, two years, however long it takes for us to crumble, if anyone remembers this e-mail they will know that I was right.
Mark
On 06/03/07, Steve subsume@gmail.com wrote:
Strong: revolutionary format. collaboration gone right. very decent end products. FREE.
Weak: Entrenched in committess and committees and committees. Overemphasis on Western and internet culture. Emergent 'Elite Class' of editors and admins who not only know the ropes, but create the ropes.
-S
On 3/7/07, Frederick Noronha fred@bytesforall.org wrote:
Could someone hazard a guess on which areas the Wikipedia is strong in, and which areas it is still lacking? FN
On 3/6/07, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I really don't think "we" all in agreement on what "we" want.
I do not have a problem with people using Wikipedia as a primary source for information. When it comes to certain topics, I would encourage it because I have confidence in our accuracy and wide coverage.
However, I would not encourage people to stake their fortune or their health on Wikipedia at all, and there are certain topics that I would discourage people from using Wikipedia as a primary source or in some cases even a secondary source for (pretty much anything related to Eastern Europe, all of which is still definitely a Work In Progress when it comes to POV).
Mark
-- FN M: 0091 9822122436 P: +91-832-240-9490 (after 1300IST please) http://fn.goa-india.org http://fredericknoronha.wordpress.com What bloggers are saying about Goa: http://planet.goa-india.org/
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l