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

[David Goodman]

1.The founder gives speeches and cultivates donors. His pronouncements
are quoted whenever someone thinks they might serve the purpose.
2.The foundation runs the servers.
3.What day to day functioning? OTRS is volunteers.
4.I was describing not what I thing ought to be, but what I think
actually is. The cellular structure that I describe is what I think I
see. (Agreed, some sociometrics would be helpful as evidence)

There are things this doesn't do. it is a total failure at keeping all
the parts up to standards, and getting people to work where work is
needed. Can't have everything. If what is wanted is consistency and
quality, nobody ever thought a wiki was the way to go. Try the
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

I'm far from urging revolution, and too well adjusted to the chaos to
be restless--those who want to put order into the project are the
revolutionaries. Those who want polish are the ones getting restless.

Allow for a few percent exaggeration in anything i say.

On 6/24/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> on 6/24/07 2:44 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny at gmail.com wrote:
>
> > There are also de facto projects. For example, the few people who
> > devote themselves to TfD, or the ones grouped around image fair use.
> > Or, as George Herbert implied, the ones who assemble here.
> >
> > Or at AfD--people specialize, and the only person who attempted to
> > comment on them all just got indefinitely blocked as an SPA, to
> > general relief.
> >
> > There are of course problems with multiple self-organizing
> > mini-groups--for one, they get isolated; I found out by accident just
> > now that a major question which is just beginning to be discussed at
> > one place has been almost fully decided & implemented at another.
> > For another, one persona can dominate, and then there are no fixed
> > limits on what they can consider their scope.
> >
> > There is no way to deal with this many things going on without a
> > considerable human overhead--at present it's done by volunteers from
> > the ordinary people, selected by interest and  perseverance and
> > thickness of skin--in your model, they'd be selected from above. Just
> > whom among the present WP people do you think qualified to do that? Or
> > are to elect our judges? -- that doesn't have any better a record.
> >
> >
> > On 6/23/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >> on 6/23/07 3:39 AM, David Goodman at dgoodmanny at gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> I see a structure--a cellular structure of groups that only sometimes
> >>> interact. If the group is reasonably small, under 50 or so--of whom in
> >>> general 5 to 10 will actually be active, and if the interfaces between
> >>> the groups are kept limited and channelized, the organization can
> >>> continue.
> >>> The cells I have in mind are he Wikiprojects. Many  of them work
> >>> really well to maintain order in their work (I'm thinking particularly
> >>> of Chemistry) and are reasonably hospitable to adequately informed
> >>> newcomers. But they work only incidentally with the other groups. they
> >>> appear in the general forums when something of critical concern to
> >>> them appears, but otherwise they leave the rest of the wiki alone.
> >>> Look at most of the admin candidates--they have each of them
> >>> contributed substantially only within a scope of a few pages. When the
> >>> become admins, they do a little general activity, but most remain
> >>> fairly limited even in that. They are like the country members, who
> >>> come to the capitol only on special occasion.
> >>
> >> David,
> >>
> >> Just thinking here: It would seem there are many active editors who are not
> >> formal members of an established WP Project (myself included). This would
> >> include persons who do mostly statistical editing (birth & death dates,
> >> place of birth, sports stats, etc.) as well as grammatical cleanup and the
> >> like. So as to involve all active editors in the Project's organization, how
> >> about grouping them in their own Project?
> >>
> >> Marc
>
> David, George, Ray, Mangoe Š ­ and all others concerned with the structure
> of Wikipedia,
>
> Wait a minute! I woke up this morning and, in all senses, smelled the
> coffee. What are we doing here!?! We appear to be embarking on a serious
> discussion of structuring an entity that, supposedly, already exists. We are
> not developers staring at a blank screen, or sheet of paper (to place it in
> my era) planning something from the ground up.
>
> Before I spend another second of my time on this issue, or ask anyone else
> to do the same, I need to be taught some things:
>
> 1) Where does the founder, Jimmy Wales, fit into all of this? Isn't this
> something he should be initiating, or, at the very least, directly involved
> in? And what do you, Jimmy, think of the present day-to-day operating
> structure of the Project?
>
> 2) What is the Foundation's role in the issue of the Project's structure?
> And, what responsibility does it have in overseeing such a venture.
>
> 3) Who, or what, in fact does direct the day-to-day functioning of the
> Project right now?
>
> 4) If we did come up with an extraordinarily creative plan for structuring
> the Project (and with Berks in the works no doubt we would :-)) ­ to whom
> would we present it for implementation?
>
> Our work on this should not be seen as simply a catharsis for some restless
> natives.
>
> Marc Riddell
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>


-- 
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.