I can't help but think back to the Mozilla foundation too. With high profile projects like Wikipedia, there is an unavoidable question of what the cultural background of the project leadership is. It has to have some perspective on the world and there are too many knotty issues where everyone appears to be as wrong as each other but the subject is too important to ignore. At some point (vague handwave) it'll be corrupted and the project will fail, and this article is an interesting view on how that might happen.
Wikipedia is an interesting one because I suspect the culture that drives Wikipedia is a mystery to ousiders. It is to me. It didn't seem to be partisan, it didn't claim to be technocratic, it officially wasn't interested in divining the truth from research. Didn't seem to be religious, didn't seem to be geographically centred. Given the incredible public good the editors are responsible for it'd be impolite to observe many of them are unhinged but the thought does occur.
Anyway; whatever culture it is the retrospective process of watching its successes or failures will be a marvel. The political activists are brutally competitive and I'd expect them to win except I don't understand who the Wikipedia people actually are and whether they will be able to reform around a new project after Wikipedia itself, inevitably, falls to barbarians.
> Wikipedia is an interesting one because I suspect the culture that drives Wikipedia is a mystery to ousiders. It is to me. It didn't seem to be partisan...
IMHO, a big part if it is actually ideological battle, at least nowadays. Individuals and cliques going about on little crusades to impose their views. If there's a conflict, there's a long, slow bureaucratic battle where, through the selective enforcement of existing policies and setting new ones, one side emerges victorious and gets to impose its view.
The starting point for the selective enforcement was "what side would your typical basement-dwelling geek favor," but that's evolved over time.
The other big part is pedantry.
> Given the incredible public good the editors are responsible for it'd be impolite to observe many of them are unhinged but the thought does occur.
Honestly, I think that's table stakes for playing the Wikipedia game. Anyone else gives up quickly.
Wikipedia is an interesting one because I suspect the culture that drives Wikipedia is a mystery to ousiders. It is to me. It didn't seem to be partisan, it didn't claim to be technocratic, it officially wasn't interested in divining the truth from research. Didn't seem to be religious, didn't seem to be geographically centred. Given the incredible public good the editors are responsible for it'd be impolite to observe many of them are unhinged but the thought does occur.
Anyway; whatever culture it is the retrospective process of watching its successes or failures will be a marvel. The political activists are brutally competitive and I'd expect them to win except I don't understand who the Wikipedia people actually are and whether they will be able to reform around a new project after Wikipedia itself, inevitably, falls to barbarians.