Hello! The Technology Liberation Front is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.
Community Page
- techliberation.com/ Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- It's clear that you need to brush up on the facts before commenting. No, Level3 is not an ILEC. Qwest is, of course. And, no, Internet access is not at all like POTS. We are, most emphatically,...
- I totally agree with you that we all need to put down our pens (or rather our keyboards for this matter), and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other...
- Your issue as I understand it is with Level 3 - are they an ILEC? Isn't Qwest (or a local coop) the ILEC there in Laramie? Two - you provide services a lot like a local exchange - I would guess...
- Yes, I will agree that you are not "getting me." First of all, I do not buy unbundled network elements (UNEs), nor am I a CLEC. I am a wireless ISP -- a true last mile provider and an...
- <i>I'd buy a newspaper that reported substance over he said/she said stenography mixed with tabloid fluff.</i> You might, but I think most of the evidence suggests that not very...
1 year ago
But the primary purpose of Wikipedia, and by extension the Wikimedia board and staff, is to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia's editing process. To do this well, it's crucial that Wikipedia's senior leadership be closely connected to the Wikipedia editing process. They need to be people who understand how Wikipedia editing works and have strong ties to a lot of prolific Wikipedians.
Right now, that happens automatically because the only real motivation for seeking a seat on Wikimedia's board or staff is out of love for the encyclopedia. But in a world where the Wikimedia Foundation was a non-profit organization with a budget in the tens of millions of dollars, there's a much bigger danger of a rift forming between Wikipedia, the encyclopedia, and Wikimedia, the cash cow.
The "accountable to Wikipedians" part is key. In most non-profits, the primary mechanism for accountability comes from the fact that the members provide most of the revenue. This wouldn't be true in an ad-supported Wikipedia. While in the long run, Wikipedia's revenues would be generated by its members, those members wouldn't have any practical ability to withhold ad revenue if they were unhappy with the way the organization was being run. Which means that if they were unhappy with the way the foundation was being run, their only recourse would be through politics. And rancorous battles over money are the last thing an encyclopedia built on editor goodwill needs.