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

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 6/13/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Sure, there are systematic problems with building something of high
> > quality using a wiki.
>
> It's not a fault of wiki
>
So the fact that anyone can come along and screw up anything in
Wikipedia doesn't have anything to do with the fact that some parts of
it are screwed up?

> > But do you really think the board can do
> > anything to fix them?  Moreover, do you think a different board would
> > have fixed the problem you've pointed out by now?
>
> The foundation can help, yes. For example, we could direct our paid
> developers to create simple tools which help users review. Things like
> the ill fated 'reviewed revision' which actually work.  If the
> community is unwilling to do this work even when made as easy and
> efficient as possible, which I expect, then we need to staff up for
> it.
>
> I don't fault the current board for not doing this yet. I was
> specifically addressing the claim that the projects correctly manage
> themselves. They don't.
>
> I have no clue why you attempted that blame the board angle here,
> because my post had nothing to do with that...
>
My fault, I was confused as to your argument.  You're saying it's the
community's fault.

Not that I see how the community is in any better of a situation to
fix the problem, unless you consider the vandals part of the
community.

> > After seeing Wikipedia in action for so long people tend to forget
> > just how amazing it is.  Pretty much anyone can edit pretty much any
> > part of it at any time.  It's remarkable that the idea works in the
> > first place.
>
> That has nothing to do with Wikipedia and everything to do with human
> nature. I was mistaken about this at one point, but SJ clued reminded
> me of one of the lines Jimbo used to repeat a lot "People are
> basically good". This why you can park your car on a public street day
> in and day out and not come out and find it keyed or vandalized every
> single day.
>
> So basically we've managed to do about as well as human nature would
> cause us to do as a default. ... and now we sit in awe of our success,
> and I think thats pretty broken.

People are basically good.  And Wikipedia is basically good.  If
anything's broken, it's the expectation.

Anthony