Wikimedia Board of Trustees: Difference between revisions
(you are right, it is unreasonable to claim that Anthere or anyone else on that Board is "good"; neutralized and explained relevance better) |
m (de-linking, fmt) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Wikimedia Board of Trustees''' is a [[false front]] which | The '''Wikimedia Board of Trustees''' is often claimed to be a [[false front]] which advances the views of a majority (3 out of 5) of board members who are employees, founders, or close associates of Bomis corporation. | ||
Two elected representatives of the [[sysop power structure]], both female, neither from the USA, were appointed after an "election" which is conducted by [[MediaWiki approval voting code]]. It is expected to mute [[Wikipedia red faction|dissent]] and claims to want to be democratic. However much [[Wikimedia corruption]] continues. | Two elected representatives of the [[sysop power structure]], both female, neither from the USA, were appointed after an "election" which is conducted by [[MediaWiki approval voting code]]. It is expected to mute [[Wikipedia red faction|dissent]] and claims to want to be democratic. However much [[Wikimedia corruption]] continues. | ||
[[Jim Wales]] has claimed that he wants to further democratize this '''Board''' with less direct involvement by [[ | [[Jim Wales]] has claimed that he wants to further democratize this '''Board''' with less direct involvement by Bomis. This seems to acknowledge at least the potential for corruption or appearance of dominance by a small clique or [[cabal]]. | ||
The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should watch the failure or evolution of this structure with interest, as either failure or evolution proves [[wiki governance]] tends to democracy. What stagnation would prove, is unclear. | The [[Consumerium Governance Organization]] should watch the failure or evolution of this '''Board''' structure with interest, as either failure or evolution proves [[wiki governance]] tends to democracy. What stagnation would prove, is unclear. Obviously the CGO should be no LESS democratic than other projects with less demanding [[wiki mission]]s, such as [[Wikipedia]] itself. | ||
[[Consumerium:Itself]] is a very much more demanding project with much higher [[performance standards]] and [[liability]] problems, so it cannot afford to repeat errors made elsewhere in [[wiki governance]]. | |||
Latest revision as of 13:35, 9 September 2004
The Wikimedia Board of Trustees is often claimed to be a false front which advances the views of a majority (3 out of 5) of board members who are employees, founders, or close associates of Bomis corporation.
Two elected representatives of the sysop power structure, both female, neither from the USA, were appointed after an "election" which is conducted by MediaWiki approval voting code. It is expected to mute dissent and claims to want to be democratic. However much Wikimedia corruption continues.
Jim Wales has claimed that he wants to further democratize this Board with less direct involvement by Bomis. This seems to acknowledge at least the potential for corruption or appearance of dominance by a small clique or cabal.
The Consumerium Governance Organization should watch the failure or evolution of this Board structure with interest, as either failure or evolution proves wiki governance tends to democracy. What stagnation would prove, is unclear. Obviously the CGO should be no LESS democratic than other projects with less demanding wiki missions, such as Wikipedia itself.
Consumerium:Itself is a very much more demanding project with much higher performance standards and liability problems, so it cannot afford to repeat errors made elsewhere in wiki governance.