QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 13th December 2012, 6:26pm)
Any predictions beyond Wikipedia is totally screwed?
I know you and
GeogreÂ
(T-C-L-K-R-D)
were not the best of friends, but I find his 2008 view of Wikipedia insightful and prophetic.
QUOTE
Well, Wikipedia, as a corporate entity of users, has worked consistently to establish hierarchies. The people who volunteer there find the idea that no one is in charge intolerable. They really hate it, and each thinks that, since no one is in charge (except Jimbo), he or she should be in charge. When Wikipedia died, it did not do so because it got too large, but rather because it got too small. Power developed, and people selected themselves for it. They wanted, desperately, passionately, to know where they stood in the ranks. They wanted to know who was above them and who below, and they wanted to know what it meant. It was important for each and every one of them, and therefore all of them had a seriously vested interest in making sure that there was a single point of power above them all, a CEO.
Source:
http://litgeek-rambles.blogspot.com/2008/0...f-american.htmlThe Arbcom election does seem detrimental to Wikipedia's initial message of being a flat hierarchy with an egalitarian society. People wanting power (for good or ill, real or illusory) in a society that supposedly is all equal. All the titles of "administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, steward, etc." contradicts the flat hierarchy model. Yet, Wikipedians are confusing by demanding more power to the community and also pushing more and more cases and responsibilities to ArbCom. It's either complete anarchy or a social and technocratic oligarchy.
I would say it is screwed, if not because it's a schizophrenic community that does not know what it wants. ArbCom is constantly attacked by both extremes and endures overload and burnout. It can't win.
Edit: Change George to Geogre. Sorry, George! Thanks, Ottava!This post has been edited by The Joy: 
ArbCom election 2012
Michaeldsuarez ArbCom election 2012 
