[Wikipedia-l] RfA

[Ray Saintonge]

Till Westermayer wrote:

>Sorry to say this,
>
>but the RfA proposal as well as your proposal last week (about user
>names) all sound the same for me: we are big, so we need more
>bureaucracy. One of the unique selling points of wikipedia -- so to say
>-- is in my eyes that wikipedia works as a fairly big community with a
>fairly low amount of rules, bureaucratics, politics and organisational
>overhead. Why change this more or less anarchy united with more or less
>the same goal as long as it isn't necessary? And wouldn't it be better
>to introduce rules, scores and regulation at the moment they become
>necessary, but not early, creating something like self-fulfing
>prophecies? If you treat wikipedia as a bureaucratic organisation, it
>will start to become one.
>
No need to be sorry, I agree   A lot of the rule making that goes on is 
based on trying to anticipate problems that may never happen.  Then 
despite the fact that these problems never happen we are stuck with a 
lot of rules that some feel should be applied at all times.  Some people 
feel very secure when there are a lot of rules; it saves them from the 
responsibility of using common sense.  Sometimes I feel that our most 
valuable rule is, "Ignore all rules."

Ec