[Wikipedia-l] The Board -> Mav's disgust

[Gerard Meijssen]

Andrew Lih wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:57:20 +0200, Gerard Meijssen
><gerardm at myrealbox.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>>The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this
>>>hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something
>>>clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that,
>>>if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias.
>>>So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's
>>>not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as
>>>even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder
>>>just what's going on.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I've no reason to doubt the good intentions of the board. However, the
>place where it should have been announced or discussed before a vote
>(m:Goings-on) didn't have it, nor was there a any significant call on
>EN. So there has been a breakdown somewhere along the line in terms of
>due process, and it does seem a dark cloud hangs over the new project.
>
>One of the benefits of wikis, and why we love them so, is exactly the
>elimination of process. Clay Shirky talks about this specifically
>(http://www.corante.com/many/20030801.shtml)
>
>However, when it comes to major extra-wiki decisions, such as creation
>of new projects, or board level decisions, process should be defined
>and followed. We're all breaking new ground here with the board and
>its role, so let's learn from this and "reboot" in an appropriate
>manner, even if it means suspending Wikispecies and going back to
>obtain some kind of quorum (if not consensus).
>
>  
>
Two things
*This mail suggests that I said things that I did not. See the mailing 
list history.
*You suggest that it is up to the en:wikipedia to decide things. It is 
not, neither is it up to de:wikipedia or nl:wikipedia (or nl:wiktionary 
to be absurd).

Meta exists already for a long time this is where the discussions about 
mediawiki occur. Procedures have been defined, responsibilities have 
been defined, the board has been chosen. And apparently when something 
is decided that you do not like it is "undemocratic". The United States 
chose a president that was not elected by a majority of the voters, his 
majority had to be decided by a court and he has acted with little 
regard for the bigger half of the American electorate. He can, because 
he is the president of the United States. Equally, the board was elected 
everybody was invited to vote, these people are really eager to do the 
"right" thing, they have within Wikimedia a great reputation, they spend 
most of their time listening to what people have to say and they do it 
voluntarily! Give them slack, give them credit !

I think it appalling that when they make a decision people start talking 
about "clandestine" when they do not like the result. Do you understand 
why Wikispecies is a good idea? Have you actually given it a thought? 
What are the arguments against it short of mav feeling annoyed?

Thanks.
    GerardM