Of course.
But a more complete democracy would've been better.
Mark
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:45:27 -0500 (EST), Thomas Whaples tom@eh.net wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
What worries me is that the final say rests with a small-but-trusted group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
I think you're idealizing the 'primeval' state of Wikipedia. Wikipedia, as a web site (with its attendant collection of computers, DNS registrations, and other unique features) was never owned or operated by some sort of collective you could describe as a 'complete democracy'. It was run by Jimbo Wales, and he had the final say in everything- he was just nice enough to defer to the community in most matters. If Google had proposed a deal with Wikipedia before the WMF was founded, then the final say would rest with him just as much as it currently rests with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia foundation. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l