(I'm on my Blackberry which makes it hard to comment inline - please bear with me.)
Marc Riddell wrote: > on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is >> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the >> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality. >> > A sad state of affairs. > Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in their approach to problems. (<<<End of Ray Saintonge''s comment) Hear, hear. We're trying to do something new, and new is hard. I applaud everybody who tries to work together in these projects collaboratively and productively. -----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:21:36 To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List<foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FW: [Wikinews-l] Increased incivility at wikinews [en] <warning: contains rant> Marc Riddell wrote: > on 2/5/09 10:45 AM, Andrew Whitworth at wknight8...@gmail.com wrote: > >> The foundation is not likely to be able to do anything, even if it is >> willing (which I doubt). It makes some sense to treat them as the >> authority figure of last resort, but that isn't reality. >> > A sad state of affairs. > Yes, it is. Nevertheless it is a fundamental paradox in this kind of project. We grow up with an old authoritarian paradigm where people are taught to take orders, and even expect to be told what to do and how to do it. In the new paradigm of sharing we expect people to take responsibility for what they say and do, and to use common sense in their approach to problems. A co-operative or consensual model is difficult when worth has been defined in term of the rights (or rites) of winning and losing. There are people out there willing to see themselves badly injured in a traffic accident as long as they believe that doing so was consistent with their "correct" interpretation of the traffic laws. >> If a project so large in size and scope as English Wikipedia is having >> these problems with hostility and incivility, you're maybe seeing a >> manifestation of problems in human nature itself. See [[w:Dubar's >> Number]] for more information about large groups like this. If you >> can't fix the problem from within English Wikipedia, then the problems >> are likely to be unfixable. >> >> > Andrew, it is not the size of the group that is the issue, but how that > group is managed. And there is a huge cultural difference between "control" > and "management". It all rests with the skillful leadership of that group. > It is my professional business to know such things. As I understand it you do very good work with some very problematical individuals, but those individuals have a very strong incentive for co-operation. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Andrew's observation. Size does matter. In education, smaller classes and smaller schools tend to have better results than big learning factories. The question remains: how can that observation be used to greater advantage? Ec _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l