[WikiEN-l] So you think you can be a Wikipedia article

[Ray Saintonge]

Stan Shebs wrote:

>stevertigo wrote:
>
>  
>
>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Step up.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>By this, I assume youre expressing your vote of confidence. 
>>Its much appreciated and certainly returned.
>>    
>>
>To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum
>too. 
>
When I look at the leadership vacuum, I don't see anything. ;-)

>I think there are many editors who would like to lead in one
>way or another, in fact many of them are on this mailing list at
>least partly in the hopes of exerting some influence.
>
This does happen, but sometimes if you hope too strongly to exert 
influence it can escape you.  I have suggested some things in the past 
that have had a major result, but also many others that got nowhere.  
Part of leadership is recognizing one's own limitation, and 
circumsribing one's own leadership aspirations.  We may have individuals 
who will be great and influential at orgainzing a specific topical 
project, but will totally lack the scope and vision that it takes to 
lead at a higher level where one must deal with the unexpected.

>But I don't think there's a whole lot of incentive or reward for
>leadership, so attempts tend to be brief and unsuccessful. Even if
>one manages to organize several like-minded editors into a
>cooperative effort, the newest of newbies can still come in and
>disrupt, oftentimes with the support of onlookers shrieking about
>cabals, and the would-be leader sees his/her investment in WP come
>to naught. It's as if you were to get elected as prime minister,
>but any recent immigrant could unilaterally nullify any action you
>took and blacken your name in the papers - who would even bother to
>run for the position?
>
It's not about the newbies.  If your visions are too easily derailed by 
newbies you may have reached your level of incompetence.  It's much more 
difficult to deal with established users who have gone off the rails.  A 
major faction there are those who have made tremendous contributions as 
editors while at the same time they are unable to get along with 
anybody.  We can all remember a few like that.

>WP's anarchy doesn't always work in the service of the goal of
>producing the free encyclopedia, but with so many anarchists
>ideologically committed to working against effective governance,
>it's hard even to discuss how the situation might be changed for
>the better.
>
These "anarchists" are often bright questioning people.  The average IQ 
among regularly active Wikipedians is probably well above average.  To 
say that they are "ideologically committed to working against effective 
governance" is not accurate.  That requires too much premeditation.  I 
think that it would be more accurate to say that their observation of 
personal and world experience has spurred a cynicism that resists being 
governed.

Ec