Erik Möller wrote in another thread:

"[T]he real substance here is the destructiveness on the margins of
our own community; that is what we must address. Wikimedia has
cultivated a tolerance for open hostility. If we see ourselves as a
community with a shared purpose, let's start acting like one. That
doesn't mean blindly following the leader - I have had my fair share
of arguments with Jimmy over the years - but it does mean rejecting
the destructive, malicious behavior that we have seen in recent days."

Erik is right. What is happening to the community is the real issue.
Even when I joined Wikipedia as a relative latecomer in 2004, the
sense of community and shared purpose was still palpable. People fell
out, of course, and made mistakes, but AGF wasn't an empty gesture or
a rule we blindly followed. We assumed good faith because we were all
here to give of our time, without payment or any benefit other than a
feeling of satisfaction, to produce something that might help to
educate and enlighten other people. In exchange, we hoped that others
would educate and enlighten us. It was the most inspiring idea I'd
ever come across, that people all over the world could unite to
benefit each other in that way.

But suddenly Wikipedia became very popular, and there was more money
than before, and people started jockeying for position, and now we're
tearing each other apart.

Everyone involved in this, no matter how right they feel they are, has
to somehow muster the strength and courage to put their individual
interests to one side and focus on the project, because it really is a
wonderful, unique, awe-inspiring thing we're involved in here. I
think we forget this because we see it from the inside. We get jaded.

The question for good people on all sides is: what can we do now to
help save and protect this community and its ideals?

Sarah
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikie...rch/091555.html

What's happening is liminal social drama. That's what Sociologist Victor Turner calls the political reaction to a breach of expectations within the community.

If there were decent leadership at WP, they'd take this opportunity to steer the project into a direction that has a chance of working.

Other large open source projects operate under the umbrella of a Social Contract that includes the following elements:

1. Vision Statement

2. Mission Statement

3. Terms of Engagement

4. Dispute Resolution Process

In order for such a Social Contract to be meaningful, the participants must be identifiable and known to each other. That rules out anonymity.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the cultish leadership at WP is simply too immature and too unprofessional to operate at the level of a functional social contract.

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007): The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008): The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.

But this isn't necessarily about SlimVirgin--and maybe she asks a valid question on the surface--What is happening?

Phase one (2003-2005): The idealists, the encyclopedists, the basically honest gnome types. Excemplified by Larry Sanger. They got deposed by..

Phase two (2005-2007): The power gamers, the clique builders, the POV pushers, the hidden agenda figures. Best exemplified by SlimVirgin.

Phase three (2007-2008): The rebels vs The power gamers. The rise of the community gadflys who contribute little to content, but are engaged in an ongoing war with Phase Two. Best exemplified by Dan Tobias.

The real question will be how SlimeVirgin reacts when someone asks her about her role in deleting the Marsden article at Jimbo's request? Will she flee and stay silent until the fracas blows over, or ban all involved?

The real question will be how SlimeVirgin reacts when someone asks her about her role in deleting the Marsden article at Jimbo's request? Will she flee and stay silent until the fracas blows over, or ban all involved?

In complete seriousness, just shut up and get back to work on the
encyclopedia. AGF and all the other values that make this thing great exist
because they are a necessity for producing good collaborative articles. The
more people focus on the project instead of meta discussion and the
personalities, the more they see how AGF isn't just a nice idea...it's
indispensable.

Mission statements etc blah blah blah - sounds like the Civil Service.

She did no such thing. Perhaps you're thinking of Thatcher's untenable unilateral Jan 1 deletion, which was DRV'd back to life? See log.