On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 04:10:54PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> >
> > The *first* instance to be asked about such thing are editors, not
> > readers. I mean, the first question is "Do *we* want it?". Readers
> > opinion could be one of the arguments in discussion; likely one of the
> > most important ones; but decision should be on editors. And Board
> > should act in opposition to editors just if there is serious threat
> > for the project existence. However, nobody gave any reason in favor of
> > avoiding editors' will in favor of Board's decision. Nothing rational,
> > just personal wishes of a couple of people. And, again, if those
> > wishes could pass without a lot of drama, I would be fine with it.
> > However, that's not the case.
>
>
> As always; I disagree with this view in the strongest possible way :)
>
> Readers should always be our primary focus, and their needs should drive
> everything we do - from editing/writing through to policy and technical
> changes. They are our life blood and our reason for existing.
I oppose any form of reader/editor dichotomy in the strongest possible way.
A wiki operates on the premise that all readers are editors, and all
editors are readers.
Any kind of distinction is pathological within the context of a wiki and
will hasten its demise. (As we are in fact seeing) [1]
So as a matter of dogma in the context of running a wiki, readers are
important in the sense that they need to be converted into
editor/readers. If you want to make a distinction, it would be wise
to stop running a wiki, and start looking for a different paradigm.
Possibly if we feel that certain encyclopedias are finished; we may
indeed want to stop running those wikis, kill off those communities,
harvest the content; and start using ye olde Nupedia model to polish
the final product.
(Of course, I do have an opinion on whether or not an encyclopedia
can be considered "finished" at a point in time dominated by Moore's law)
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
[1] One of the things that impresses me about the current foundation
staff is that they recognize the growing dichotomy as a problem, and
are willing to fight to prevent it. :-)
--
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
