On 4/11/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 4/11/07 12:28 PM, Erik Moeller at
erik(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
How is an open, continuing debate about a variety
of issues an
indication of "governance broken beyond repair"? Inflammatory comments
like this are unhelpful.
I don't believe it's beyond repair, but can you honestly say that among
these "variety of issues" there has not been some serious concerns about the
state of leadership in WP?
There are also legitimate disagreements about the equivalents of
"fundamental pillars"; Larry clearly believes that anonymity and
levelling the expert/non expert playing field are bad for any project,
and took the cause and effects of the Essjay incident as an example of
some of that.
From the viewpoint that having people fake credentials
is bad, anyone
looking at Wikipedia as-is has to conclude that we're pretty
close to
fundamentally and structurally broken.
I don't think he's right; he has a point, but experience has shown
that the thousands of monkeys we do have are creating some pretty good
Shakespeare. That said, Larry's putting his energy where his mouth
is, and trying a restart of the WP concept remolded along the lines he
thinks fix the things he thinks are broken with WP, at no small
investment of his own effort. He clearly isn't "over" his personal
issues with Wikipedia, but he's also moving past it.
I think I can see where Erik is coming from in taking this as a
percieved attack; I just think it's easier for us not to do that.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com