Returning to the basic issue, Marc proposes centralization in order to
have more effective collaboration in a structured environment.
However, he does not propose what structure he wishes to adopt, or
demonstrate that it would work better, or maintain the community
trust, or keep the most productive contributors.
Unfortunately, this proposal has come simultaneous with considerable
expressions of disapproval of one of the few organs for the small
amount of centralized decision making that we do have, and the
specific rejection by the community of some of the proposals of those
most involved in that structure.
The people who are here at WP are, by and large, the ones who like
chaos. Many are here, particularly the younger people, specifically
because of a greater comfort with this sort of extremely loose and
spontaneous group. And some of the older people are here because of
disappointment with the fixed agendas of more organized groups.
We should work towards our strengths, and do what the present
structure is best suited to do. This does not include writing the 21st
century version of the 9th edition of the Brittanica, a scholarly
compendium of formal knowledge--I agree with Marc that we are not
suited to that.
DGG
On 6/27/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Eugene van der Pijll wrote:
PS: About
a month or so ago, I proposed on this List to change the WP handle
from "The encyclopedia anyone can edit"
to "Wikipedia: The Living
Encyclopedia". The post got absolutely no
responses.
I don't like it. Why should we change a phrase which we have grown
accustomed to, to a bland metaphore?
Yes. If a catchphrase is working, don't change it. I wouldn't go so
far as to call the suggestion bland. Changing symbols involves
unnecessary risks.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.