Marc Riddell wrote:
This appears to be especially true when it comes to discussing the leadership and structure vacuums within Wikipedia. It is easy to simply not respond on a List such as this, but how would you react if asked about this in person, face to face?
on 6/19/07 7:48 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
What leadership structure? Sometimes I believe that the leadership is only suitable for drawing and quartering. I often have the impression that we live in a culture of distrust, and that this infects much of our activity, whether on Wikipedia or esewhere.
Marc Riddell wrote:
What leadership structure? Precisely. This is what I have been trying to drive home for some time now.
A community without strong, definable leadership produces a culture of "everyone for themselves". This is true whether in Wikipedia or the world at large. It becomes the very familiar "survival of the fittest". And "who can you trust?" becomes the pervading question.
on 6/21/07 4:55 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It either produces a culture of everyone-for-himself, or it exploits such a culture that was already there. I do get the impression over the months that you are somewhat more structured in your outlook on these points than I,
Not "structure" in the classic stone and concrete sense; but, rather, a structure originally and specifically designed and created to suit the spirit of the Project.
but there is still plenty of room for common ground.
Common ground? Absolutely! Because I believe we would be (and are) both working toward a common end.
- There needs to be a "rules committee" to thread its way through the
swamp of rules creep. I am not committed to that name; if there is a better name that beter reflects reality that's great. Let's just consider "rules committee" to be a provisional discussion title. A rules committee would make rules itself. It could synthesize a proposed wording from all the variations that might be offered, present that to the relevant community for adoption or rejection, and monitor the acceptance process.. This is a particularly wide mandate. One of the earliest issues that it would need to consider would be the extent of its own mandate, and a general review of the rule making process. Key to its duties would be to insure that seemingly small and unnoticed changes to the rules do not unexpectedly become a problem long after they are made. It could begin to apply a form of stable versioning to policy.
- The presence of a firwall between the activities of the Foundation
and of each of its projects needs to be made clear. It is impossible to guarantee that all activities on all projects will be legal. This is not said to promote illegality. In a context of multiple languages and uncertain legal interpretations on an international scale there will always be doubts. Unduly rigid views of the law stifle creativity; unduly flexible views breed disrespect. At the same time two distinct projects can arrive at a different analysis of the same problem.. Anyone who tries to choose which is correct falls into the same trap. With a firewall the Foundation would abjure the right to _decide_ what is legal in any project. It's action on content would be strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law. If it receives a proper takedown order it takes things down. Otherwise it knows nothing about it. To some, this may seem maddeningly literal, but that's what makes firewalls work. What a project does about the same material is its own business, but it is entirely within its rights to have rules that are stricter than what the law may allow.
- With project autonomy each project has the right to be run by a gang
of absolute idiots, but one should not assume that another project will submit itself to the same brand of idiocy. There can be Meta level rules, but these need to be kept to a minimum. The concept of NPOV is a good meta level rule, as is a consistent use of Wiki markup. A rules committee could very well propose the same policy for two or more projects, but there is no requirement that they would all need to adopt that proposal.
Thank you. This is exactly the type of thinking I have been trying to encourage the Community to engage in.
But, before any real, worthwhile planning takes place there needs to be an agreement, beyond just you and me, that such planning is needed. It is going to take you, and others with your degree of credibility in this Project, to encourage and fuel the debate.
I feel like a meteorologist trying to warn the citizenry of an impending hurricane; but finding the majority of these citizens are looking out of the windows of their own secure structures and saying, "Huh, the sky looks clear to me".
How do you convincingly say "Trust me" to someone when they've heard it so often before. What we are getting now in this paradigm shift of communications is the first broad generation of disbelief
One point remains: When you hear someone say, "Trust me," it triggers a flight response. Given that premise, one can hardly make the same request.
As to the issue of trust: To me the phrase "I trust you" is just the beginning of a complete sentence. What is really being said is "I trust you not to harm me". Likewise, "Trust me" is really "Trust me not to harm you". That's powerful! But for you to have this power, I must first grant it to you.
But in the context and medium we are engaged in here, what power would I really have, and what harm could I possibly do you? I encourage everyone working in this Project to stop and really think about this. One of the greatest things we can all take away from having been a part of this Project, is the learning and experience of having worked constructively with another person.
Marc Riddell