No subject

> And we don't know what changes we may try to make will
> converge to zero and fizzle, or which ones will have a multiplier
> effect that will spin them out of our control, like something out of
> the Sorcerer's Apprentice.  We don't know; we provably cannot know,
> until we try.  But we need to know going in that our tools are very
> large and very blunt.

Yes. Risk.
>=20
> Our article on emergence, at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence>,
> is actually not that good; it doesn't lend itself to the layman,
> although as usual it does present a somewhat decent overview.
> However, the external links section is stuffed with gems, including
> <http://llk.media.mit.edu/projects/emergence/>, which uses cellular
> automata to introduce basic ideas (requires java) and
> <http://www.timgooding.com/>, which talks about emergence in human
> behavior.  I highly recommend reading up extensively on the topic of
> emergence, because until you grok it, very, very little of this place
> is going to make any sense at all.
>=20
>=20
> Thank you,
> -Michael Noda
>=20
Michael,

I agree; your perception of the Project as organic is much closer to realit=
y
than my own. Wikipedia is organic: it is living, and it is growing.

My fundamental question was, is, and will remain: who is actively overseein=
g
the day-to-day growth of this organism with the wisdom, judgment, expertise
and, yes, authority, to keep it in check? Without such active oversight,
this growth will develop into a jungle - beautiful to observe, but
impossible to navigate without a very sharp instrument.

I have asked this question many times on this List, but all I keep getting
back from some very frequent and usually vocal contributors is either
evasion or silence.

Marc Riddell

PS: About a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handl=
e
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit" to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no responses.