James Carroll (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
James Carroll (talk | contribs) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I am a man who lives in Northern California. My interests are history, sociology, politics, digital signal processing, illustration, literature, and music. Emerging art forms which have not yet received validation from academics are of special interest to me. |
I am a man who lives in Northern California. My interests are history, sociology, politics, digital signal processing, illustration, literature, and music. Emerging art forms which have not yet received validation from academics are of special interest to me. |
||
=='''You can't let the inmates run the asylum'''== |
|||
In the same way that MySpace was destine to succumb to FaceBook, Wikipedia – despite its current popularity – is destine to succumb to a future more robust competitor because of its fundamentally flawed management model. |
|||
Within the software industry, which originally pioneered the concept of dynamically changing teams for individual projects, there was a realization that every project needs some temporary leader at all times to be able to ''quickly'' diffuse controversies among the team's members. |
|||
The same way that a ship can only have one rudder, some project leader must always exist or a project’s team can easily degenerate into endless squabbling and eventual conflict. |
|||
Unlike Wikipedia, software companies sought to encourage individuals with the most passion for a topic to take ''ownership'' themselves – at least during the start of a project – and also realized that as a project matures, new project leaders were likely to be assigned over and over again. |
|||
Wikipedia’s central flaw was that it falsely assumed that if they wrote enough rules and documented them, that team members would instantly transform into trained and self-regulating lawyers, and be able to quickly and efficiently resolve project issues in a democratic and diplomatic style. |
|||
However time would show that the large body of rules would ironically not clarify but only create a fuzziness that aggressive individuals with a false sense of entitlement would seek to exploit, sometime in concert with other aggressive individuals, in arbitrarily forcing their decisions and designs upon a project (an ''article'') – sometimes dictatorially reigning in this power-play for years at a time while stagnating the project. |
|||
The only salvation for Wikipedia to repair its broken management model by recognizing the continual need for some responsible and diplomatic individual to be always placed in leadership of a project, so that conflict resolution can happen quickly and diplomatically without festering into persisting irrational and emotional disputes.[[User:James Carroll|James Carroll]] ([[User talk:James Carroll|talk]]) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:45, 6 January 2014
I am a man who lives in Northern California. My interests are history, sociology, politics, digital signal processing, illustration, literature, and music. Emerging art forms which have not yet received validation from academics are of special interest to me.
You can't let the inmates run the asylum
In the same way that MySpace was destine to succumb to FaceBook, Wikipedia – despite its current popularity – is destine to succumb to a future more robust competitor because of its fundamentally flawed management model.
Within the software industry, which originally pioneered the concept of dynamically changing teams for individual projects, there was a realization that every project needs some temporary leader at all times to be able to quickly diffuse controversies among the team's members.
The same way that a ship can only have one rudder, some project leader must always exist or a project’s team can easily degenerate into endless squabbling and eventual conflict.
Unlike Wikipedia, software companies sought to encourage individuals with the most passion for a topic to take ownership themselves – at least during the start of a project – and also realized that as a project matures, new project leaders were likely to be assigned over and over again.
Wikipedia’s central flaw was that it falsely assumed that if they wrote enough rules and documented them, that team members would instantly transform into trained and self-regulating lawyers, and be able to quickly and efficiently resolve project issues in a democratic and diplomatic style.
However time would show that the large body of rules would ironically not clarify but only create a fuzziness that aggressive individuals with a false sense of entitlement would seek to exploit, sometime in concert with other aggressive individuals, in arbitrarily forcing their decisions and designs upon a project (an article) – sometimes dictatorially reigning in this power-play for years at a time while stagnating the project.
The only salvation for Wikipedia to repair its broken management model by recognizing the continual need for some responsible and diplomatic individual to be always placed in leadership of a project, so that conflict resolution can happen quickly and diplomatically without festering into persisting irrational and emotional disputes.James Carroll (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)