[Foundation-l] The role of the board

[Jimmy Wales]

I changed the subject because I'm off on a general philosophical tangent.

Delirium wrote:
> I'd take the somewhat less-strongly-worded position that "it's up to the 
> board to decide _as the representatives of the community_".  That is, 
> there is no need for a full public vote on every detailed issue (that 
> would defeat the entire purpose of having representatives), but if there 
> is reason to believe that the community has a strong opinion one way or 
> the other, it would be inappropriate to just ignore that and do the 
> opposite.  It would also be preferable to at least ask for input before 
> doing anything major.

The board doesn't represent the community, per se, but rather has a 
legal responsibility to carry out our charitable mission, which of 
course involves profound respect for the community.

I say this not to contradict anything specific that you're saying, 
because of course it would be inappropriate to just ignore the opinion 
of the community and do anything opposite to that opinion, and of course 
to ask for opinion before doing anything major is our tradition and a 
very sensible one indeed.

This only comes up in some counterfactual hypotheticals -- suppose we 
have a huge influx of newcomers from our newfound fame, and people want 
to turn this into a big joke project?  Suppose the community votes to 
abandon neutrality in favor of, hmm, let's say support for the US war on 
terror?  Some things, like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and NPOV, are 
not negotiable, as is my firm insistence that what we are doing is to be 
a *high quality* work first, are not negotiable, and if the community 
doesn't like it, we have to find different people to be a part of the 
community.

As I said in my founder's letter in Quarto this month, though, I don't 
think my position should be construed as "the encyclopedic purpose is 
more important than the community".  Rather, it's that the purpose of 
this community is the free, encyclopedic, charitable purpose.  I will 
defend that purpose in the name of defending the community.

My sense is that the vast majority of really active and important 
contributors consider this to be a very important part of our "social 
contract"... that a huge part of my role in the community is 
specifically to make sure that we stay _in focus_ and true to our 
original principles -- a sort of bedrock force to make sure that as 
newcomers come into our community, our values aren't swamped.

Reporters are always asking me questions like "But, as it grows, won't
Wikipedia just become another Usenet, another swamp overwhelmed by 
trolls and pranksters."  The answer is: no, I won't let it.

I didn't gather everyone together by saying "Let's form a really neat 
online community and do whatever we feel like doing" -- I gathered 
everyone together by saing "Let's do something really great in the 
world: write an encyclopedia, put it under a free license, and give it 
away to everyone on the planet."

Wikipedia is a social experiment of sorts, but it isn't a representative 
democracy (except in elements) and it isn't a monarchy (expect in 
elements) and it isn't an aristocracy (except in elements) and it isn't 
anarchy (expect in elements).  What it *is*, is a project to create and 
give away an encyclopedia under a free license to everyone on the planet.

--Jimbo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/attachments/20050416/c909a76a/attachment-0001.pgp