On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/1/10 James Rigg <jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com>: > >> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for >> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that >> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably >> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it >> is not run in a fully transparent and non-hierarchical way. > > > Tens of thousands of active editors a month. That such a thing could > run without bureaucracy defies rational thought. > > Also, you can't actually stop people talking amongst themselves. See > "Tyranny of Structurelessness." > > > - d. >
First, I actually began the email to which you are replying with: "I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical..." Second, re tens of thousands of editors requiring a bureaucracy, again, that may, or may not, be true, but the point I'm simply making here is that I've *recently* read in several different places that Wikipedia *is* non-hierarchical, when this isn't true. For example, Jimmy Wales states on his user page: "There must be no cabal, there must be no elite, there must be no hierarchy or structure..." _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
