Mark Williamson wrote:
I somehow doubt that Google, a publicly-traded company
with very
secretive management, wants to do this because they feel it's their
duty.
It's good publicity, and if that helps get people to use their search
engine and other services they make money from extra ad hits on their
search engine and other services. Not exactly rocket science here, folks.
What worries me is that the final say rests with a
small-but-trusted
group of individuals, not with the community. This is the trouble of
our switch from a complete democracy to a not-so-representative
democracy (only two of the board members were elected) - we have to
trust that these people will be gentle with our future.
Prior to the board elections, there were *ZERO* community-elected people
with direct, legal say in the actual operation of the project. None at
all. Now there are two. Two is more than zero, not less.
Perhaps you don't remember, but before there was a legally incorporated,
not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia and related projects were
in fact a side project operated purely at the whim of Jimmy Wales and
his for-profit company, Bomis, Inc.
Are you a shareholder in Bomis, Mark? I know I'm not. We didn't have
"complete democracy" in any imaginable way; all we had was the fact that
Jimmy is a nice guy and Bomis was never taken over by evil people in the
meantime who might have decided that Bomis' resources would be better
spent in a different way.
Wikimedia's charter tasks it with maintaining a free encyclopedia, and
presently two-fifths of its board of directors is elected from the user
community. That's a much greater reassurance, and much closer to
"democracy", than relying solely on the whim of one nice guy with no
legal responsibility to keep the project going in the way 'we' like.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)