Getting on the Wikimedia Board Options

[A spatula said what?]

From the Wikipedia "foundation-l" mailing list:

We also appointed someone to one of the vacant expertise seats appointed
by the board. His name is Matt Halprin, and in brief, Matt is with the
Omidyar Network and a former eBay executive who was in charge of trust
and safety there. Matt has met with a number of us over the past several
months, and I invited him to join us in Buenos Aires and meet the entire
board. The Omidyar Network is very interested in supporting our strategy
development discussions, and I look forward to having Matt's experience
and insight as we continue with the process.

Search these for "board":

Sunlight Foundation Announces $4 Million Invesment From Omidyar Network

Goodmail Systems Secures Additional $4 Million in Funding from Omidyar Network

Seesmic raises $6 million in round two

Endeavor announced today that it has received a commitment of up to $10 million from Omidyar Network

[Moulton]

Maybe he envisions a secondary market in used encyclopedia articles.

[A spatula said what?]

Maybe he envisions a secondary market in used encyclopedia articles.

More likely a proving ground for new patent-pending online reputation systems.

[A spatula said what?]

More likely a proving ground for new patent-pending online reputation systems.

His extensive experience with online communities, trust, and reputation, will make him an excellent addition to our Board.

TOLD YOU SO!!

Coming soon: Admins to be renamed POWER EDITORS, barnstars to be replaced with GOLD STARS and RETALIATORY FEEDBACK to replace edit wars.
Of course the advertisements on the site will easily fund the patent licensing fees to Omidyar and his friends at ebay. Plus no more irritating and profit sapping mirror and forks as Omidyar effectively owns creative commons.

[GlassBeadGame]

More likely a proving ground for new patent-pending online reputation systems.

His extensive experience with online communities, trust, and reputation, will make him an excellent addition to our Board.

TOLD YOU SO!!

Coming soon: Admins to be renamed POWER EDITORS, barnstars to be replaced with GOLD STARS and RETALIATORY FEEDBACK to replace edit wars.
Of course the advertisements on the site will easily fund the patent licensing fees to Omidyar and his friends at ebay. Plus no more irritating and profit sapping mirror and forks as Omidyar effectively owns creative commons.

Are you really so naive to not know that what actual has been going on within the Wikipedia "community" for a long tie is much worse than what you describe? Wikipedia is a MMORPG. All MMORPGs are driven by reputational economies based on exchanges of favors and influence. See Castronova. All this nonsense about editors writing articles for an encyclopedia is just the game board and is only true in a virtual sense. If you ever met SlimVirgin or JzG you already know this. Encyclopedic concepts like sourcing and neutrality only exist as tokens in the form of "WP:NOR" and "{{fact}}" to be wielded by avatars who could not hope to engage in sustained intellectual activity outside this virtual world. At least one board member might now understand this.

[Moulton]

His extensive experience with online communities, trust, and reputation, will make him an excellent addition to our Board.

Jimbo's biggest fear is that the project falls into disrepute.

Bringing on board a person who understands how to build a community of reputable players is a good idea, but I fear it comes way too late in the game. The more disreputable players have mostly driven off the reputable academics who might have onced helped Wikipedia reach its original objective.

[Malleus]

His extensive experience with online communities, trust, and reputation, will make him an excellent addition to our Board.

Jimbo's biggest fear is that the project falls into disrepute.

Bringing on board a person who understands how to build a community of reputable players is a good idea, but I fear it comes way too late in the game. The more disreputable players have mostly driven off the reputable academics who might have onced helped Wikipedia reach its original objective.

I'm quite certain that many "reputable academics" have chosen not to get involved in wikipedia, whether they've been "driven off" or not. The academic imperative to publish is not met by wikipedia articles, and not all "reputable players" will be academics anyway.

It would not be difficult to make a case that academics are perhaps those least likely to be able to write a neutral article on a subject dear to their hearts, as opposed to espousing the view they hope will make their name and give them tenure. Let's not fall to our knees in awe of "reputable academics"; the world of academia is no more "reputable" than any other human endeavour.