On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Charles Matthews < [email protected]> wrote:
> Ryan Delaney wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Charles Matthews > > <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Apoc 2400 wrote: > > > Isn't it time to be honest with ourselves and nominate > > "Wikipedia is not a > > > bureaucracy" for deletion? > > > > > "Bureaucracy" is a fairly helpful description of how Wikipedia > > actually > > functions, as far as management style is concerned. Decisions are > > taken > > according to practice that has been codified to some extent (in some > > areas, to a large extent). If you want to get something done, knowing > > where to go and how to apply is at least half the battle. But my > > reading > > of WP:BURO would make the comment "A procedural error made in posting > > anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for > > invalidating that post" central to its intention. I say we don't > > delete > > that. > > > > Charles > > > > > > > > Wikipedia has no "management style" because there are no managers. We > > should not be a bureaucracy in any sense of the word. > > > > That is the point of WP:BURO. It's not that "We are a bureaucracy, but > > if you cut some corners we'll look the other way." That's not what it > > says at all. It says "We are NOT a bureaucracy" and so "Knowing where > > to go" should be much, MUCH less than half the "battle" of > > contributing to Wikipedia. > > > > - causa sui > > > I'm sure that styles without central managers feature in management > books, though. In fact I know they do. The question is whether it is > more helpful to insist that the reality is a purist wiki/collaborative > style of work with everything freeform, or to look the actuality in the > face every now and again. The way we operate is a hybrid of pure wiki > editing with other stuff. And being in denial about the scale issue > seems head-in-the-sand to me. A wiki with 10,000 pages is a big wiki. > And we have 1000 times that, one way and another. > > Charles > > That's the point made in the OP. Apoc2400 thinks that, since the reality is that Wikipedia has become greatly bureaucratized (he and I think that's a bad thing, you think it's a good thing, but that's beside the point) then we should stop kidding ourselves and get rid of WP:BURO. I want WP:BURO to stay because I want to have strong resistance to instruction creep and any complications of the editing process that make content contribution more and not less difficult for new users. - causa sui _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
