[WikiEN-l] WP Structure (Offshoot from: Admins shouldn't shoot back)

Marc Riddell michaeldavid86 at comcast.net
Thu Jul 5 22:01:28 UTC 2007

on 7/5/07 3:05 PM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny at gmail.com wrote:

> Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to
> have more effective collaboration in a structured environment.
> However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or
> demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community
> trust, or keep the most productive contributors.

I have deliberately not proposed a specific structure for the Project
because I believe it is premature to do so. What must occur first is a
discussion of whether such a restructuring is needed. If the majority of
Members of the Community (starting with those on this List) believe the
present structure is working, it would be a gross waste of time to propose
the specific details of an alternative one. I have already articulated many
times, in many posts, why I believe a rethinking of the Project's structure
is needed. I am now asking what the rest of you think.
> Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable
> expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small
> amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the
> specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those
> most involved in that structure.

What is your meaning here?
> The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like
> chaos.

Most creative persons do. A work of art is the artist's way of sorting out
the chaos. What's needed is a structure that prevents this creative process
from being stifled, and getting bogged down by bullshit.

> Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically
> because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and
> spontaneous group.

As are some of us "older people" too :-).

> And some of the older people are here because of
> disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.

And to show that an alternative can succeed ­ and thrive.
> We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present
> structure is best suited to do.

At present, the Wikipedia Project is not a user-friendly environment. It is
the survival of the fittest. I would like to see it be the survival of the


More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list