[WikiEN-l] What is the fundamental goal of the project?

[Parker Peters]

On 1/25/07, Omegatron <omegatron+wikienl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In Jimbo's 2005 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" post, he described the
> purpose of the project:
>
>     Wikipedia is first and foremost an effort to create and distribute a
>     free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality to every single
>     person on the planet in their own language.
>
> Does this still hold true?


No, and it hasn't for a long while. I'll explain below.

  There have been a lot of major changes in
> policy in the months since, which, we all hope, are supportive of our
> fundamental goals.


"Months"? Try Years.

  I think almost everyone who contributes to the
> project agrees completely with this mission and wants to maintain it.


Even those who've given up bothering with the drama, nonsense, and futility
of trying to actually improve it by editing, yes.

But if you think about it, the statement actually contains several
> goals:
>
> * free
> * (create an) encyclopedia
> * of the highest possible quality
> * (distribute) to every single person on the planet
> * in their own language
>
> In fact, these goals occasionally conflict.


They are also conflicted by other "goals." Primarily, "of the highest
possible quality" is the first thing sacrificed, which is very sad.

"Of the highest possible quality" is regularly circumvented by the myth of
"consensus", which is the method by which organized large groups of POV
pushers destroy content that they don't like and make our articles less than
encyclopedic, less than accurate, and less than truthful.

"Of the highest possible quality" is also hamstrung by users who feel they
should "own" an article after writing all and/or a large portion of it, by
people associated with various products or companies who have more of an
emotional attachment than they should writing articles that are lifted
directly from the company's PR, and by the deletionists who feel that
anything they personally don't have experience with should be removed (even
if the article is well sourced and well written).

"Of the highest possible quality" ought to be our first priority, but it has
been left out, abused, and turned into a joke by wikipedia policies. In its
stead is "consensus", "respect for process" calls by people who have no
respect for processes themselves, jerks who feel that "2+2=5" has to be
sourced, jerks who will attack any source they disagree with and try to get
it disallowed, and by a defeatist attitude by those who claim that wikipedia
will "eventually" become quality while refusing to actively do anything to
improve its quality themselves.

If Jimbo's statement is still valid, which objectives override the
> others?  Can they be arranged (preferably by Jimbo) in order of
> priority?


"Consensus" trumps factual accuracy, quality, and pretty much anything else
it seems.


Can this statement or the principles it represents ever be repealed or
> changed?


Already has been.

  Who has the power to change it?


Jimbo did when he declared "Consensus" the guiding principle.

  Is this simply a top-down
> authoritarian mandate that can't be challenged, or do regular
> Wikipedians have a say when changes are made to the ultimate goals and
> priorities of the project?


You think you actually have a say? Look what happens to anyone who doesn't
drink the group kool-aid.

Parker