[Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

[Jan Ainali]

2013/7/29 Michael Snow <wikipedia at frontier.com>

> On 7/29/2013 1:50 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Jan Ainali <jan.ainali at wikimedia.se>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have not read the vision statement as it is the production of knowledge
>>> that need be availible to every human being, but the consumption.
>>>
>> Actually, having co-drafted the Vision Statement (it was drafted at
>> the October 2006 Board retreat in Frankfurt and then finalized after
>> community discussion), I can assure you that that was not the intent.
>> I recall that Florence and I talked about that specific aspect a fair
>> bit. We proposed the language "share in" over "given free access to"
>> in order to emphasize that it's not a one-directional process (some
>> treasure trove of knowledge that you are given access to), but a
>> process we are creating an opportunity to participate in. It could be
>> made clearer, but that was the intent.
>>
> In any case, I'm not sure why we'd conclude that making the production of
> knowledge more widely available is somehow harmful to the cause of making
> the consumption of knowledge available to everyone. Because the success of
> Wikipedia has been built on rather the opposite of that. In that context
> which comes first, production or consumption, is sort of a
> chicken-or-the-egg question about the origin of network effects.
>
> --Michael Snow


Firstly, the clarification from Erik is very valuable. Perhaps I am the
only one making that interpretation from the wording in the vision
statement, but if what Erik say is the intention is correct (and I have no
reason to think otherwise) it could perhaps be stressed further to let
everyone in the movement be aware of the importance.

Michael, I would not say we should conclude that it is harmful, rather I
would say (or at least, before Eriks clarification) that we would need to
justify why "democratization of production" as an end would be more
important than giving free access to the sum of all human knowledge. As a
thought experiment, what if the question is not chicken-or-the-egg, but
rather-natural-born-chicken versus science-improved-production-of-hens? Is
the nutrition gained for the consuming population less worth than the
employment of farmers?