--- Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote:
I don't agree with either of these sentences. I
don't see any way for
our policy development process to be any more open
to input from the
community. I can't think of a less secretive or
more noisy way to
organize anything. There are no back rooms here --
everything is done
in public, with wide advertising throughout the
system of how it's
done. We're always open to suggestions, of course,
but I think the
system right now is a model of public
accountability.
The system right now may have been good in your
opinion, but it was developed without input or notice
of many wikipedians. Maybe some had little input;
maybe it was developed a year or two ago when many of
us hadn't joined wikipedia. But either way, some
wikipedians oppose the system, so it must be
reconsidered
The second sentence bewilders me completely. What
do your scare
quotes around 'policy' mean? What do you mean by
'forcing openness'?
Somehow our openness is *imposed* on the world?
We are forced to write the deletion notice. Basically,
you are forcing us, and the other wikipedians, to use
deletion notices.
And finally, I certainly don't agree with the notion
of 'unwashed
masses' -- that attitude has no place within my
outlook. The very
foundation of our wiki philosophy is that ordinary
people can do
extraordinary things, so that there's no need for
elaborate
hierarchies of control.
--Jimbo
I don't like the use of "unwashed masses" either
LDan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com