Ryan Delaney <ryan.dela...@gmail.com> wrote: > It sounds to me like you're both making a similar point: that is, there's no > reason to deny the reality that Wikipedia does have some bureaucratic > elements. In the worst case, this leads to a rather Kafkaesque situation > where people who are actually obstructed by bureaucracy being told by a > bureaucrat that "Well, as you can see from our policies, this is not a > bureaucracy." In this case it helps to have 20/20 vision about the fact that > Wikipedia is, in fact, bureaucratic, because recognizing the problem is half > of solving it. > > If this is your view, then you probably would agree with a less polemical > version of what I took the OP to be saying: Wikipedia *is* bureaucratic, and > we ought to be honest about that.
Well, 1) no we aren't just a taco stand and 2) yes we do have more than one employee, so certainly its a no-brainer that we have apsects which can rightly be called "bureacratic." But this is quite different from saying that "Wikipedia is bureaucratic." It is not. WP simply has a mix of open and closed control systems that each have bureaucratic aspects. -Stevertigo 'Your faith was strong but you needed proof, You saw me bathing on the roof...' _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
