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

[Ray Saintonge]

Oldak Quill wrote:

>On 24/07/06, Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>To be a little more constructive :-), I see the leadership vacuum
>>too. 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.
>>    
>>
>I think the lack of leadership is good. It promotes community
>involvement and it proves to new users that they can help in a big
>way.
>
Not really.  Without prejudicing the specific tasks that leaders take on 
some measure of leadership is needed to prevent total chaos.  Some 
newbies feel completely overwhelmed by the size of Wikipedia, and often 
need guidance to get them going.

>>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?
>>    
>>
>I see the equality between the old boys and the newbies as one of
>Wikipedia's greatest assets for the reasons I state above. It prevents
>anyone from becoming over-mighty and abusing their power and damaging
>Wikipedia. Leaders shouldn't come to the job because of the perks and
>benefits - they should fight for it because they truly want it and
>believe in the project.
>
Not all leaders adhere to the importance of equality.  I admit that the 
dedicated vandal fighters can't keep that up too long without it 
affecting their view of human nature.  I don't think that any of our 
leaders are in it for the tangible perks, but the intangible ones can 
still be a motivating power.  Sometimes the worst leaders are the one 
who want it too much.  Having them fight for for a leadership role 
because they truly want it is downright scary..  The good leaders are 
very patient.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>A bigger priority, IMO, is making the Foundation more democratic and
>answerable to the community while also preventing momentary trends and
>fads from destroying the project (such as might occur if the
>Foundation were too democratic).
>
Yes, I support open accountability, but "democracy" has become the kind 
of buzz-word that worries me.  It can't be imposed, and it can't be 
brought to people until they are ready to accept it and grasp it.  A 
psephocracy is a mere shadow of democracy. 

Ec