[WikiEN-l] New way to discourage newcomers invented

[Charles Matthews]

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
>     actually
>     functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are
>     taken
>     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
>     reading
>     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
>     delete
>     that.
>
>     Charles
>
>
>
> 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.

Charles