Thomas Dalton wrote:
Is that our aim?
Long ago, I used to work for market makers. These days, I do a lot of work for Internet companies. In both lines of work, risk management is essential. In both, the aim is to take as many well-managed, likely-profitable risks as possible. That's how things get better, and that's where a lot of your best information comes from.
The risk management strategy you describe strikes me as a good one for something much more settled, like a water utility.
Do you really think Wikipedia should be that risk-averse? I had thought it a much more dynamic enterprise, at least for the next few decades.
Risk management is always about balancing risk and reward. How risk-averse you are determines where you put that balance (in other words, how much reward you require to make the risk worthwhile), but you have to put the balance somewhere. It's never wise to take a risk that offers no reward. Being not at all averse to risk is never a good idea.
That's all true, and I agree completely.
Remind me who was advocating taking risks that offer no reward?
Also, my question wasn't about whether one should balance risks and rewards, but what the right level of risk tolerance is for Wikipedia. I'm saying that I expect Wikipedia would be pretty hungry for well-managed risk. Unless people feel that the era of innovation at Wikipedia is more or less over, in which case the minimum-risk strategy you suggest seems more appropriate.
Thanks,
William