[WikiEN-l] New way to discourage newcomers invented

[stevertigo]

Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

If you are right, that would mean that 1) Jimbo, 2) a Foundation that
implements and prioritizes all new development, 3) a Board that
does... something, 4) an Arbcom that tries hard (to tar and feather
only the right people), 5) OFFICE, 5) and 6) a small army of
<s>dorks</s> administrators (empowered, apparently to make
un-reviewable 2-week blocks)... 'do not necessarily qualify as
"managers."' On that basis its just simple logic that 'WP does not
have' a '"management style"' and 'WP is not a "bureaucracy"'.

But we see cases all the time, though, where an entity says it is not
something that it is, or is something that its not - North Korea for
example. And that's to say nothing of the fact that *any entity that
has *some notion of 'getting things done' likewise has some notion of
'managing things,' and thus has some certain concepts of "management."
Hence anything with 'some concept of management' will likewise have a
"management style." This is true regardless of how how chic (geek
variation) it is to just say something 'there is no management style
(there is only wiki).'  (Note: The geekword "wiki" does not suffice in
describing the Wikipedia's actual purpose, scope, or processes, let
alone its systems).

So while WP may not have any "managers," nor does it implement a
"management style," it still has elements that at least very very
strongly resemble each, though perhaps badly. And of course even a
taco stand with one employee can develop some kind of "bureaucracy"
issues, so I don't see the point in continuing any pretense that
suggests otherwise here. In fact, according to the traditional
"canonical" terminology, Wikipedia doesn't even have "editors" - it
only has "users."

-Stevertigo