Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

A better more original source of pithy organizational rules would be Robert Conquests three laws of politics

Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its enemies.

If you transform Conquest's rules from politics to running (ruining?) the wikipedia, the transformed rules are

"We can change nothing not even our exponential growth spiral, not our policies, nothing"

"LOL We're not doing the fiscal conservatism thing. I like how the current top discussion is about popularity and the need for a circular firing squad, not something financial. A direct quote of an attempt to avoid working on the issues "I'm reminded of the inflammatory, low-rent campaign of Donald Trump." Yeah buddy that'll fix it, that'll fix it real good."

"We're headed off the financial cliff now get out of the way I'm going gas pedal to the floor as you can see in the exponential graphs. The problem is we're a CRUD app and that's cutting edge CS just like quantum computing so naturally there's no possibility of criticism there. After all, the Egyptians didn't have flush toilets and they built a pyramid, so any criticism of the toilet in my bathroom is either making fun of the entire Egyptian culture or pretending the pyramids were not a logistical challenge."

There is some humor in that the world of paper encyclopedia publishing ran on mostly capitalist operational principles for decades, centuries. It turns out that running an online encyclopedia off donations and extreme hand waving is powerful enough to destroy an industry on its way to its inevitable collapse. Maybe someday in the future we'll have encyclopedias again, but the era after wikipedia and before the next encyclopedia will be a bit of a dark age. That's too bad.

I honestly cannot make any sense of your "translations" of these "laws" (which sound more like assertions to me).

Also, what scenario are you talking about when yo usay "after wikipedia"? There's plenty of copies of it on the internet, so the data won't suddently vanish, and wikis don't suddenly stop existing if the Wikipedia foundation implodes.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact