[Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

[Delirium]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 6/13/06, Delirium <delirium at hackish.org> wrote:
>   
>> Where is this potentially libelous material they are supposedly "loaded"
>> with?  If you are making this claim: There have in the past existed a
>> nonzero number of libelous claims in Wikipedia articles, that's
>> certainly a reasonable claim.  But to claim they're "loaded" with such
>> material requires some evidence.
>>     
>
> Nine presses of random page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torrisholme
> Thirty six presses:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scot_Alan_Bittinger
>   
It seems you're unlucky or something, because I just hit random page a 
full 100 times and found nothing particularly bad.

In any case, I don't think we disagree that there should be a way of 
tagging pages with their degree of "doneness".  I don't see what that 
has to do with community mismanagement in need of the Foundation to fix 
it though---the community has in fact proposed doing just that, complete 
with some detailed proposals, while the Foundation certainly hasn't 
(see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Article_validation_proposals).  It 
hasn't actually happened yet because: 1) it's only been fairly recently 
(I'd say the last 6 months or so) that it's become a more pressing 
priority than writing content in the first place; 2) it's a fairly 
difficult problem to solve without falling into the bottomless pit of 
complex-but-gameable systems.

That said, I don't object to the Foundation prodding things along, for 
example by organizing a working group to come up with a more final 
proposal suitable for implementation.  Some coordination across projects 
would be particularly helpful with that.

-Mark