thank you for the comments.
yes the two proposals were based on the same
it may needn't be implemented now, but we can
keep the ideas for the future, like a think tank.
a consideration is that large communities have
higher diversity indices. A high diversity index
brings disagreements, wikistress, forks, etc.
Bureaucracy, in max weber's style, may be used to
control the negative effects of a high diversity
index. however, NPOV can only be achieved with a
high diversity index.
The best way for minimising the negative outcomes
of diversity is to have a spirit of Fellowship,
fraternity, cooperation and [[WikiLove]].
Bureaucracies and policies should me implemented
only when Fraternity and WikiLove seem impossible
Can we have a spirit of Fraternity & cooperation,
as our population grows quickly? I hope so! how
do u think?
--- Till Westermayer <till(a)tillwe.de> wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 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
prophecies? If you treat wikipedia as a
bureaucratic organisation, it
will start to become one.
/ / / / ... Till
Westermayer - till we *)
. mailto:email@example.com .
. icq 320393072
. Habsburgerstr. 82 . 79104 Freiburg . 0761
55697152 . 0160 96619179
. . . . .
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!