QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 23rd April 2010, 1:29am)
I find it really strange how such a bunch of libertine, anarchistic, hedonist, queer, porno-pushers would be radicals allow themselves to be monitored and controlled by those with authoritarian or establishmentary tendencies. Or how those types sit comfortably on the others backs?
Its all too weird for me.
(IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)
That's my quote of the day!
It raises one of the fundamental contradictions of
teh communitah.
From a thread I started ages ago.
There are a number of resemblances between the structure, governance and ideology of Wikipedia, and those of a totalitarian state.
1. Ruled by one Party. All advancement and reward and recognition is strictly through the Party ranks.
2. Absurd elections which are totally controlled by the Party. They may not be for any but the Party, they attended almost exclusively by those who want advancement in the Party, and who naturally vote 'yes' in the hope that their own 'yes' will eventually come. Negative votes are closely watched. They must be for the right 'reasons', i.e. genuine conflicts with Party ideology. If the reasons are 'wrong', the culprit is relentlessly bullied and hounded. The outcome of each election is determined in any case by a high-ranking Party official or 'bureacrat'.
3. All advancement depends on public admission of total subservience to the Party line or ideology. A candidate for advancement must make a series of statements partly intended as public humiliation, partly to test their public acknowledgement of ideological principles and commitment to the Party.
4. Resistance to power by any other party or interest. This principle is even used by the Wikipedian resistance, on the grounds that if one Party is so bad, even more of them must be worse. Freedom of association is strictly forbidden, as is any form of canvassing.
5. Belief in a supernatural governing principle that regulates all things and to which all must be utterly subservient. Marxism has the 'progress of history'. Fascism has the 'will of the people'. Wikipedia has 'the mighty Wiki'. The Wiki is all-powerful and no one can resist it. "Do not test Wikipedia". I have heard this many times - does anyone have some concrete examples? We also have 'the project' and of course 'the community'. This principle is always invoked whenever the community or its ruling elite is about to do something very bad.
6. A 'single mad belief' that may not be challenged, and on whose existence the whole structure depends. In Wikipedia it is an over-restrictive egalitarianism, the belief that everyone can edit and everyone contributes equally to 'the project'.
7. Hostility to any kind of real individualism, and a requirement of total conformity to the group ideology. Also combined with the willingness (very common in totalitarian regimes) to forgive almost anything provided that the culprit publicly renounce their former crimes or sins, and commits themself wholeheartedly to the ideology. (Common in the cultural revolution, and in Pol Pot's regime. Also a fundamental principle of Christianity - but then totalitarian regimes have a lot in common with religious belief-systems).
8. A weird mix of ultra-liberal beliefs and restrictive social conservatism. Hitler was both a vegetarian, a green, an enemy of the church. But also a repressive conservative who toadied up to big business, and a virulent racist. In Wikipedia it is OK to have a picture of a vagina on your user page. But call someone a c---, and the block hammer is out.
9. Dependence on slave labour. No individual may claim recognition for any of their contributions to 'the project' (unless of course it is through advancement in the Party). This is combined with a system of petty and childish reward-tokens which are given for acts which are consistent with the Party-belief and ideology, and generally being a 'good citizen'. In the Soviet era this this took the form of Stakhanovism. E.g. here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Medal_trudovoj_doblest.png, and note the resemblance of the medal to a 'Barnstar'.
10. Show trials as well as secret trials.
11. A public and a secret police force. The public police force requires Party membership (and is really one and the same thing). The secret police force employs all sorts of spying methods. the concealment, in defence of which public or personal safety is argued. (The French revolutionaries had the 'committee of public safety'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_public_safety which ironically made the republic far less safe as the committee executed thousands of individuals). The Wikipedia secret intelligence force may also arrest and execute for 'behavioural reasons'. See e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown.
12. A scapegoat class. No ideology can possibly succeed. Therefore for every ideology there must be scapegoat-class which is to be blamed for the failure. Nazism of of course had the Jews, Marxism has the petit-bourgeouis enmired in 'false consciousness'. Wikipedia has the uncivil.
Who is the worst Wiki Admin
