[Foundation-l] en.WP dysfunction (was: A letter to Wikipedia collides with the non-free content policies)

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Jan 26, 2008 11:22 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb at yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idea that en.WP will recieve an offical WMF
> evaluation of specific case, when the most general
> pleas for clarification recieve no answer [1] is . . .
> ambitious.

Agreed.

> I really do not understand why en.WP is so
> dysfuntional that they cannot make common decisions
> within the community without appealing to the
> foundation several times a month.
[snip]

I think you're misreading it.:  En.WP can, but appealing to a higher
authority is a frequent way to try to gain advantage in a dispute.
(Not that I'm claiming that is what's happening in this instance, just
that it's a common factor)

The higher relative frequency of these requests from enwiki is most
likely due to size and a lack of language barriers (this list is
predominantly in English) and not necessarily dysfunction.

[snip]
> Is it because Jimbo's historical special
> relationship has handicapped them into always looking
> for a higher authority to step-in?

Authority is a widely used and proven method of resolving issues. It
is argued by some that in matters which are highly subjective that
authority decision making produces the best outcomes.

In many places authority decision making is the primary method used to
resolve disputes, so it is natural that some people really want to use
that approach to solve disputes on our projects.