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

[Michael Snow]

On 7/29/2013 2:44 PM, Jan Ainali wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
I don't think anybody is trying to say that "democratization of 
production" is more important than "free access" or even universal free 
access. But given that the question originated in discussions about the 
visual editor, I'm not sure why access is being invoked that way, since 
the editing interface has no direct impact on the reader experience.

The collaborative nature of our projects is also one of our important 
values. It may be more of a means to an end rather than a goal like the 
vision statement. But in some sense, achieving the sum of all human 
knowledge requires all humans to collaborate in it.

--Michael Snow