QUOTE(Larry Sanger @ Fri 7th May 2010, 2:49am)
Dr. Sanger, with the utmost respect, I think there are better ways to get your message out than Slashdot. Slashdot can reach a large number of people, but if you really want to make change happen on Wikipedia, then the relevant pressure groups aren't the people who read Slashdot. If you want my advice, though I doubt you do, you should spend your time preparing an Op-Ed for the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.
History has shown that there is essentially one way to make things change on Wikipedia and that is to somehow apply pressure on Jimmy Wales. It was Wales who, after the Seigenthaler incident, acted to prevent anonymous editors from creating pages (a worthless change but a change nonetheless). It was Wales who announced that flagged revisions would become policy (though we must wait to see if that actually transpires), and though there was a so-called "consensus" it was Wales who gave the nod to enabling semiprotection. At the end of the day, the "community" on Wikipedia is too divided and lacks the leadership to ever agree on substantial change. For better or worse, only Wales has the power to force through major initiatives.
What does this mean? It means that in order to make something change on Wikipedia, you can't work through the grassroots, you have to influence elite opinion. The one thing that over and over again has worked to put pressure on Wales is negative press. Whether this puts pressure on him because he is genuinely shocked or because he sees change as an effective PR move I don't know, but frankly it doesn't matter. If you want to make things change on Wikipedia, you have to appeal to the broadest possible audience. The place to do that is in the mainstream media, and so Dr. Sanger, please write an op-ed piece. Please get it published in a major outlet. Please. And all of the rest of you, why not write to your local paper?
There's another way that change might come about on Wikipedia, through government pressure or through pressure from major donors, but both of those are also most likely to be influenced by attention in the mainstream press.
Finally, I had myself vowed to stay off this site, and I am breaking that vow, but I made that vow, in part, because I did not see Wikipedia Review as an engine for change, and I think in this situation things are different. I stand by the idea, though, that you won't get anywhere by talking to people who are already involved in Wikipedia enough to read Wikipedia Review or the Signpost or the Village Pump, etc., but if this site could serve as a place to plan ideas, then it could be something much more than it is right now.