[Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

[Delirium]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

>What makes you think that the project 'manage themselves'?  As far as
>I can tell many of the projects substantially mismanage themselves.
>Most of the wikipedias, for example, are loaded with inaccurate and
>potentially libelous material and the projects have thus far
>formulated no systematic solution to addressing such quality issues.
>  
>
Where is this potentially libelous material they are supposedly "loaded" 
with?  If you are making this claim: There have in the past existed a 
nonzero number of libelous claims in Wikipedia articles, that's 
certainly a reasonable claim.  But to claim they're "loaded" with such 
material requires some evidence.

As for accuracy, in the first place the projects have relatively good 
accuracy, as confirmed for example by the _Nature_ review.  However, it 
is widely agreed that we can do a better job labelling which of our 
articles are in progress and which are "ready" to various degrees, and 
there are a number of proposals to do so.  Since this requires some 
coding it is indeed possible that the Foundation could help out here by, 
for example, hiring a coder to implement some features to help make this 
happen.  The fact that we haven't eliminated world hunger and cured 
cancer all at once doesn't mean that things are being "mismanaged", 
merely that there remains more to be done.

-Mark