[Wikipedia-l] Meta-Tree

[Michael R. Irwin]

Stephen Gilbert wrote:
> 
> I think the method we've been using since the
> beginning is pretty good. It is as follows:
> 
> 1. Propose a convention.
> 2. Discuss the convention with any interested parties.
> Note objections and proposed improvements.
> 3. If most people agree, start using the convention.
> 4. If it's not working, or if Wikipedians don't find
> the convention useful, stop using it.
> 
> Rules and bureaucracy would just kill the organic
> development that we have here.

The method proposed merely counted supporters.  The
use of the word rule was unfortunate.  Its intended
meaning was similar to the existing guidelines of
which one is to disregard guidelines as per personal
preference.

Automated information reporting is not bureaucracy.

It is empowerment.  The individual user choosing to
exercise personal preference has better information to
judge potential consequences which may result from the 
community at large.

To a newcomer a list of 5 or 6 handles may be deceptive if
they have perused the Wikipedian list page.  Five or six 
out of hundreds is not terribly influential.

Whereas 10 to 50 percent of active editors or participatory
voters taking time to judge the rules is substantial and
likely to matter in the stacks.

regards, mirwin