On 08-08-2001, Gareth Owen wrote thusly :
Wikipedia is naturally collaborative.
Can it be more collaborative ?
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Groups seem to organise themselves '''naturally''', and really don't need formal structures, or at least not those that they can't figure out for themselves. If you feel that you can and want to organise a "Tiger Team" for some topic or organise collabaration between the various international wikis, fantastic, go ahead, you certainly don't need offical blessing. I for one can prefer the freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like wikipedia as it is. As long as we respect each other opinions, and work toward NeutralPointOfView, we don't need any more formal layers of bureaucracy beyond the occasional stern telling off by Larry :)
Are we missing the guarding angel ? ;-)
That's another point. Maybe I am a little paranoid but I feel that while wikipedia is doing so great I'm anxious what will it be in the future. How can we be sure that they won't shut down the server or make it payable. This is a commercial company after all, not the FSF.
The freewheeling edit-what-I-like-when-I-like attitude is only illusory anarchic kind of freedom because LS comes in and ...
Best regards, kpj.