[WikiEN-l] New way to discourage newcomers invented
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
Tue Oct 20 20:00:51 UTC 2009
Ryan Delaney wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> <mailto:charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>> wrote:
> Apoc 2400 wrote:
> > Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate
> "Wikipedia is not a
> > bureaucracy" for deletion?
> "Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia
> functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are
> according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some
> areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing
> where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my
> of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting
> anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for
> invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't
> Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We
> should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word.
> That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but
> if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it
> says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where
> to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of
> contributing to Wikipedia.
> - causa sui
I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management
books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is
more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative
style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the
face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki
editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue
seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki.
And we have 1000 times that, one way and another.
More information about the WikiEN-l