[Foundation-l] Hiring of Interim Executive Director and Legal Counsel

Mon Jun 19 19:39:59 UTC 2006

Erik Moeller wrote:

>On 6/14/06, Aphaia <aphaia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>How about a different point of view? Separated in concept, but united
>>in practice.
>>    
>>
>
>I see it the other way around. For me, the key concept that has
>enabled the success of Wikipedia is "within our goal (to create an
>encyclopedia), maximize participation, transparency and
>accountability". This means that we accept certain control mechanisms,
>such as page protection and the notion of admins, as necessary to
>protect the encyclopedia, at least until better solutions are found.
>
>I believe Wikimedia would be well served by following the same
>_principle_, using different _practices_ which are appropriate for an
>organization (taking into account, for instance, the legal
>requirements and risks an organization faces; certain tasks require
>certain minimum qualifications, etc.). I also view this, in both
>cases, as a never-ending _process_, rather than a permanent state. If
>either Wikipedia or Wikimedia become static in their practices, it is
>time to think about replacing them.
>
>This same view is applicable to the other projects: what is an
>appropriate practice for Wikipedia is not necessarily so for Wikinews
>or Wiktionary. Again, within each project's defined mission, we should
>seek to optimize the above key variables. This is what I call the
>"wiki philosophy", and it is independent from any particular
>implementation or scenario. This philsophy, I feel, is universal.
>
I substantially agree, and would put a handful of fundamental principles 
well above practice or process.  Those principles carry over to other 
projects.  The establishment of Wiktionary was a natural evolution from 
the semi-fundamental principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  That 
established a boundary for the new project without putting into doubt 
any of Wikipedia's other principles.

Stasis is a high level violation of the principle of non-ownership.  We 
tell would-be editors that their work may be edited mercilessly, and 
proceed with such edits.  It's easier to do when there is so little at 
stake, as in the case of a single article.  The assets needed to run 
Wikimedia are no longer insignificant.  Things have gone well beyond a 
single server in San Diego.  With that growth has come the motherly 
perception that the assets need to be protected, and that a socio-legal 
framework needs to be built in support of that framework. Security begs 
for static practices.

Mothers protect their children; they do not own them.   There's a price 
paid from the soul when the mother has to stand her neatly cleaned-up 
offspring in front of the nice corporation hoping that a little candy 
will trickle down.

Democratic communities are about empowerment.  That empowerment comes 
from a belief in one's own self.  At a governmental level it does not 
happen simply from the actions of an invader who makes pompous promises 
about binging democracy.  Belief in oneself is always more difficult in 
societies where the citizens are schooled into compliance from an early 
age.  I can't think of a single society where that does not happen.

It's hard to identify the tipping point where the participatory 
community moves over to become the protected community.

Maybe we just need more forks.  Thus far we have had mirrors, but 
imagine if one or more of those mirrors decided that from some point in 
time it would no longer copy Wikipedia content, but would allow its 
users to edit directly on that site.  The effect on subjects that are 
prone to NPOV battles could be interesting.  Probably the combined 
result of all such edits might be even more neutral.  Neutralizing the 
effects of ownership could be even more wiki.

Ec