Hello Mark, On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Delirium<[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at > least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do > more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large > staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and community/volunteer-based > organizations with large staffs risk capture of the overall project by > the official organization, rather than the community and volunteers they > ostensibly act as support staff for. Can you say more about this -- both what more you can do and the risks run -- and cite the track record[s] you mention? Do you feel there are similar capacity/risk tradeoffs of larger/more inclusive communities? (some might say that the current editing community is becoming an organization separating itself from the general public, building barriers to participation; and that this [de facto] organization risks capturing the overall knowledge-sharing project within existing guidelines and policies, rather than encouraging bold participation among the wider world, who are the ostensible audience and body of future contributors.) Thanks, Sj > It's not inevitable the outcomes will be bad, but it's worth thinking > about, I think, especially as the track record of traditional non-profit > organizations overall is quite poor in that department. > > -Mark > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
