[WikiEN-l] News agencies are not RSs

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/6/29 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>> 2009/6/29 Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com>:
>>> Wikipedia as an outlet devolves control over information "to the
>>> people" -
>>> that is, people outside of hierarchical organizations where control and
>>> responsibility for information is assigned by some measure of merit.
>>>
>>> In 99.99% of cases this works out quite well; in the others, as we can
>>> see
>>> just from this thread, laudable goals (saving a life in imminent
>>> danger)
>>> would be discarded by those who see the world in absolutes and abhor
>>> compromise. It's a drawback we'll be grappling with for the entire
>>> lifespan
>>> of this project, I'm sure, and while we got it right in this case... In
>>> at
>>> least some instances, we can expect that views like those held by
>>> WJohnson
>>> and geni will prevail.
>>
>> I don't think it's necessarily that people abhor compromise, it's that
>> we have no way to privately discuss these things and nobody that can
>> really impose a decision without discussion.
>>
>
> Actually, we do, the arbcom list, and possibly the functionaries list. A
> few decisions have been imposed without discussion, at least not a
> general discussion. This is even more so is Jimbo takes the lead.

Content decisions are not made by ArbCom, functionaries or Jimbo. The
community aren't going to be keen on orders from on high that we're
not allowed to question or get an explanation for.