Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
_ Meta Discussion _ Democracy And Inquiry
Posted by: Jonny Cache
The title names a theme that I've been worrying over for the last 20 years or so — just that I can recall — and the subtitle is a SOP to the local Cerberus that will hopefully allow us to integrate several skeins of thought that have been ravelling their merry ways in and out of knitwork basket and garbage pail for the last year or so in this Forum.
And orange you glad this ain't Wikiputia,
where we woodent bee aloud to sinthesize !?
where we woodent bee aloud to sinthesize !?
Hang on, I have to go look up some references …
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Dymanic [Sic] Page —
Brain a liitle scattered right now, and the Trick-Or-Treaters (TOT's) will be knocking down our door anon — there's a joke there somewhere about anonymous tots in φunny costumes, but no time for WikiPuns now — so I'll need to use this page as a sorting shelf for tracking down the references that I have in mind, starting with whatever I can find right off and working my way.bak to the primary sources.
Jon Awbrey
Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (May 2001), "Conceptual Barriers to Creating Integrative Universities", Organization : The Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory, and Society 8(2), Sage Publications, London, UK, pp. 269–284. http://org.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/2/269.
Awbrey, S.M., and Awbrey, J.L. (September 1999), "Organizations of Learning or Learning Organizations : The Challenge of Creating Integrative Universities for the Next Century", Second International Conference of the Journal 'Organization', Re-Organizing Knowledge, Trans-Forming Institutions : Knowing, Knowledge, and the University in the 21st Century, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/integrat.htm.
Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995), "Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry", Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15(1), pp. 40–52. http://www.chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html.
Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K., {http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/papers.html}
Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K., "Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society", http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/critThink.html.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Eureka! Here is one of the quotes I was looking for —
QUOTE(Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. @ Aug 1993)
The importance of preparing individuals for their role as citizens in a democratic society is well documented. However, the reverse assertion is less broadly understood. That is, a democratic environment, in which dialogue and critical thinking are prized, is not only facilitative of but vital to the full development of intelligence. Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems" (p. 180)¹.
¹ Putnam, H. (1992), Renewing Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Source. Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. (August 1993), "Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society", presented at 'Critical Thinking : The Reform of Education and the New Global Economic Realities', Thirteenth Annual International Conference of The Center for Critical Thinking, Rohnert, CA. Archived, ERIC Document ED4703251. http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/critThink.html.
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 10:22am) 
Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems."
What do Putnam or Dewey say about the relationship between Majority Rule vs Consensus Building in regards to the solution of vexing social problems? It occurs to me that the paradoxes of Condorcet and Arrow reveal the necessity for deeper thinking about solving the problem of devising a satisfactory socio-political choice among competing alternatives.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 1st November 2007, 10:49am)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 10:22am)
QUOTE(Susan Awbrey and David Scott @ Aug 1993)
Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems.
What do Putnam or Dewey say about the relationship between Majority Rule vs Consensus Building in regards to the solution of vexing social problems? It occurs to me that the paradoxes of Condorcet and Arrow reveal the necessity for deeper thinking about solving the problem of devising a satisfactory socio-political choice among competing alternatives.
From my pers-pective, Peirce is the sun whose light Dewey and Putnam but reflect, as in a glass, or a moon.
This is actually the very issue that dragged me willy, but mostly nilly into Wikipedia, on account of the fact that Peirce articulated a very careful, detailed, and subtle Social Theory Of Inquiry (STOI) that is commonly dis-articulated as a Consensus Theory Of Truth (CTOT). To be succinct, STOI ≠CTOT, far φreakin from it!
I remember that it was various folks on the Peirce List griping about the abject ignorance of Wikipedia articles on Peirce matters — and the recalcitrant ignorance of particular editors who refused to budge when anyone who knew better tried to correct them — that brought me some of my earliest words of Wikipedia's existence. But I didn't bother looking to see what all the fuss was about until the selfsame nonsense began to litter the shores of my Google searches.
But I will have to break for more coffee and look up a few links …
Jonny
Posted by: Moulton
I wonder if Awbrey is to Peirce as Kripke is to Wittgenstein.
It's probably easier to adapt the thinking of a favorite philosopher to one's own interpretation than to faithfully portray that philosopher's view without introducing an idiosyncratic distortion.
There may or may not be a consensus model for the Scientific Method (or a consensus approach to the practice of Epistemology), but it occurs to me that even if we are less than notable amateurs at the Game of Inquiry and Discovery Learning, there are some reliable markers along the way that help us decide which competing model among many better explains and predicts the observations at hand.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 1st November 2007, 11:47am)
I wonder if Awbrey is to Peirce as Kripke is to Wittgenstein.
It's probably easier to adapt the thinking of a favorite philosopher to one's own interpretation than to faithfully portray that philosopher's view without introducing an idiosyncratic distortion.
There may or may not be a consensus model for the Scientific Method (or a consensus approach to the practice of Epistemology), but it occurs to me that even if we are less than notable amateurs at the Game of Inquiry and Discovery Learning, there are some reliable markers along the way that help us decide which competing model among many better explains and predicts the observations at hand.
Briefly —
- ¬4me2say.
- True ∀ Hermenauts.
- Here, I think you are using a different meaning for CTOT than what I was talking about. I meant CTOT = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_theory_of_truth#Consensus_gentium.
Posted by: Moulton
Currently, I'm ruminating about the tension between a Consensus Theory of Triumph vs a Contentious Theory of Tragedy.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 1st November 2007, 12:07pm)
Currently, I'm ruminating about the tension between a Consensus Theory of Triumph vs a Contentious Theory of Tragedy.
BADHACHE !!! Jonny Crache!!! Must Re-Sort 2 SuperScryption !!!
- CTOT¹
Consensus Theory Of Triumph - CTOT²
Consensus Theory Of Truth - CTOT³
Contentious Theory Of Tragedy
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 2:22pm)
Eureka! Here is one of the quotes I was looking for —
The importance of preparing individuals for their role as citizens in a democratic society is well documented. However, the reverse assertion is less broadly understood. That is, a democratic environment, in which dialogue and critical thinking are prized, is not only facilitative of but vital to the full development of intelligence. Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems" (p. 180)¹.
¹ Putnam, H. (1992), Renewing Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Source. Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. (August 1993), "Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society", presented at 'Critical Thinking : The Reform of Education and the New Global Economic Realities', Thirteenth Annual International Conference of The Center for Critical Thinking, Rohnert, CA. Archived, ERIC Document ED4703251. http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/critThink.html.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. @ Aug 1993)
The importance of preparing individuals for their role as citizens in a democratic society is well documented. However, the reverse assertion is less broadly understood. That is, a democratic environment, in which dialogue and critical thinking are prized, is not only facilitative of but vital to the full development of intelligence. Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems" (p. 180)¹.
¹ Putnam, H. (1992), Renewing Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Source. Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. (August 1993), "Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society", presented at 'Critical Thinking : The Reform of Education and the New Global Economic Realities', Thirteenth Annual International Conference of The Center for Critical Thinking, Rohnert, CA. Archived, ERIC Document ED4703251. http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/critThink.html.
Jon Awbrey
QUOTE('Thomas Jefferson')
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
QUOTE('Father Gassalasca Jape')
What, what! Dom Pedro, you desire to go
Back to Brazil to end your days in quiet?
Why, what assurance have you 'twould be so?
'Tis not so long since you were in a riot,
And your dear subjects showed a will to fly at
Your throat and shake you like a rat. You know
That empires are ungrateful; are you certain
Republics are less handy to get hurt in?
Back to Brazil to end your days in quiet?
Why, what assurance have you 'twould be so?
'Tis not so long since you were in a riot,
And your dear subjects showed a will to fly at
Your throat and shake you like a rat. You know
That empires are ungrateful; are you certain
Republics are less handy to get hurt in?
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 12:32pm)
QUOTE('Thomas Jefferson')
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
QUOTE('Father Gassalasca Jape')
What, what! Dom Pedro, you desire to go
   Back to Brazil to end your days in quiet?
Why, what assurance have you 'twould be so?
   'Tis not so long since you were in a riot,
   And your dear subjects showed a will to fly at
Your throat and shake you like a rat. You know
That empires are ungrateful; are you certain
Republics are less handy to get hurt in?
AB,
The item on the table is not the nature of democracy, but the relation between democracy and inquiry.
Inquiry is a general but handy term that encompasses everything from everyday problem solving to scientific method, while deftly side-stepping those Fire In The Night Feyerabendians who raise such a whoop and a holler as to whether there's a method to the divine madness of science or not.
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Moulton
While I prefer democracy to tyranny or oligarchy, I prefer best practices to popular but ill-conceived practices.
In medicine, there is a core ethic to avoid iatrogenic treatments which variously make the patient sicker, or otherwise spread or exacerbate the disease.
In politics, it is customary to blindly adopt iatrogenic treatments.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 6:56pm)
AB,
The item on the table is not the nature of democracy, but the relation between democracy and inquiry.
Inquiry is a general but handy term that encompasses everything from everyday problem solving to scientific method, while deftly side-stepping those Fire In The Night Feyerabendians who raise such a whoop and a holler as to whether there's a method to the divine madness of science or not.
Jon Awbrey
The item on the table is not the nature of democracy, but the relation between democracy and inquiry.
Inquiry is a general but handy term that encompasses everything from everyday problem solving to scientific method, while deftly side-stepping those Fire In The Night Feyerabendians who raise such a whoop and a holler as to whether there's a method to the divine madness of science or not.
Jon Awbrey
In democracy, you are expected to think as the masses tell you to think, or at
least do as they tell you to do.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 2:44pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 6:56pm)
AB,
The item on the table is not the nature of democracy, but the relation between democracy and inquiry.
Inquiry is a general but handy term that encompasses everything from everyday problem solving to scientific method, while deftly side-stepping those Fire In The Night Feyerabendians who raise such a whoop and a holler as to whether there's a method to the divine madness of science or not.
Jon Awbrey
The item on the table is not the nature of democracy, but the relation between democracy and inquiry.
Inquiry is a general but handy term that encompasses everything from everyday problem solving to scientific method, while deftly side-stepping those Fire In The Night Feyerabendians who raise such a whoop and a holler as to whether there's a method to the divine madness of science or not.
Jon Awbrey
In democracy, you are expected to think as the masses tell you to think, or at
least do as they tell you to do.
I think we might be over-emphasizing the "mob" aspect of democracies. Modern democracies are usually characterized by free information flow, numerous independent power centers and plentiful opportunities to make course corrections. Democracies in this sense should be good hosts and sponsors of inquiry.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 1st November 2007, 4:51pm)
I think we might be over-emphasizing the "mob" aspect of democracies. Modern democracies are usually characterized by free information flow, numerous independent power centers, and plentiful opportunities to make course corrections. Democracies in this sense should be good hosts and sponsors of inquiry.
Thanks, Spiel, that's more on track with what Peirce, Dewey, and Putnam were saying.
Not to mention Ben Franklin & Co.
I hope nobody was thinking Wikipedia when I said Democracy.
Jonny
Posted by: Moulton
Inquiry sometimes generates an inconvenient truth. Most researchers don't have the kind of audience that Al Gore managed to reach.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:51pm)
I think we might be over-emphasizing the "mob" aspect of democracies. Modern democracies are usually characterized by free information flow, numerous independent power centers and plentiful opportunities to make course corrections. Democracies in this sense should be good hosts and sponsors of inquiry.
You realise in most so-called democracies, not to mention most every government in
the world, most laws were written by people who are now dead. Hence, we have a
world full of necrocracies.
In any case, what free information flow? Pretty much anywhere you go, there is
some sort of restriction on defamatory speech. In some places, it is stronger than
others. For example, anti-defamation laws are stronger in the UK, Australia, and
Canada than in the US. There are also related laws regarding privacy or false
light in many places. Then there's copyright, in some cases restricting not only
your right to write things that someone else happens to have already written,
but http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379309.stm,
even if it has other uses. And then the US considers strong cryptography a weapon
which cannot be exported. Fortunately, http://www.openbsd.org/crypto.html, from which
strong cryptography can be exported.
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 3:28pm)
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:51pm)
I think we might be over-emphasizing the "mob" aspect of democracies. Modern democracies are usually characterized by free information flow, numerous independent power centers and plentiful opportunities to make course corrections. Democracies in this sense should be good hosts and sponsors of inquiry.
You realise in most so-called democracies, not to mention most every government in
the world, most laws were written by people who are now dead. Hence, we have a
world full of necrocracies.
In any case, what free information flow? Pretty much anywhere you go, there is
some sort of restriction on defamatory speech. In some places, it is stronger than
others. For example, anti-defamation laws are stronger in the UK, Australia, and
Canada than in the US. There are also related laws regarding privacy or false
light in many places. Then there's copyright, in some cases restricting not only
your right to write things that someone else happens to have already written,
but http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379309.stm,
even if it has other uses. And then the US considers strong cryptography a weapon
which cannot be exported. Fortunately, http://www.openbsd.org/crypto.html, from which
strong cryptography can be exported.
These are hardly draconian restrictions on information flow. The specific merit of each of these restrictions can be debated and we might frequently come out on the same side. I indicated above that one element of a democracy is the presence of frequent opportunities to make course corrections. This should address your concern about rule from the grave. None of the nation states you cite are prefect democracies, but they are pretty good concerning information flow.
Now let's give Jonny and company the needed space to conduct a more focused discussion on "Democracy and Inquiry."
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 1st November 2007, 11:27pm)
These are hardly draconian restrictions on information flow.
Why does everyone keep assuming I am pro free speech? I am strongly
pro-privacy, and rather anti-defamation too, particularly when it comes to
websites with large numbers of readers. Often, protecting people's privacy
and reputation involves censorship, so I am clearly not in favour of free
speech.
Posted by: Amarkov
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
See, consensus does not justify unethical action. Just because the WP
community has a consensus in favour of defamation does not mean that
defamation is okay. Also, when bans become a way of rewriting the
dictionary to redefine consensus in a way that excludes some people's
opinions, the word becomes rather meaningless.
Also, in order for voting to be Sybil attack proof, votes would have to be
weighted according to how many good articles / featured articles the
user had written or helped to write. (And, seeing as how the credit
would often have to be divided among multiple editors, it could get
complex.) This would solve the sockpuppetry problem by making it
irrelevant, so people could use as many sockpuppets as they liked.
Posted by: Amarkov
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 5:32pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
See, consensus does not justify unethical action. Just because the WP
community has a consensus in favour of defamation does not mean that
defamation is okay. Also, when bans become a way of rewriting the
dictionary to redefine consensus in a way that excludes some people's
opinions, the word becomes rather meaningless.
Also, in order for voting to be Sybil attack proof, votes would have to be
weighted according to how many good articles / featured articles the
user had written or helped to write. (And, seeing as how the credit
would often have to be divided among multiple editors, it could get
complex.) This would solve the sockpuppetry problem by making it
irrelevant, so people could use as many sockpuppets as they liked.
I don't claim that a pure voting system would be perfect (although I certainly don't think that weighting votes based on how many featured articles one has is good). But it would certainly be better than people pretending to listen to the community and then doing whatever they want to.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:43am)
I don't claim that a pure voting system would be perfect (although I certainly don't think that weighting votes based on how many featured articles one has is good).
Voting is susceptible to Sybil attacks, and hence people take measures to stop
sockpuppetry. However, the cure is worse than the disease. Sockpuppetry
investigations regularly involve the disclosure of private information, not to
mention the accusation can be very dehumanising to those who are innocent.
Better to find some way to back sockpuppetry irrelevant.
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:43am)
But it would certainly be better than people pretending to listen to the community and then doing whatever they want to.
The WP community does not define ethics. While consensus is fine for matters
not of great ethical import, if the community asks you to do something you feel
is unethical, you should ignore them and do what you think is right.
Posted by: Moulton
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:54pm)
The WP community does not define ethics. While consensus is fine for matters not of great ethical import, if the community asks you to do something you feel is unethical, you should ignore them and do what you think is right.
This practice corresponds to Kohlberg's Sixth Stage of Ethical Reasoning. It's also synonymous with tilting at windmills. You can expect the windmill to unceremoniously pitch you over the precipice and into the chasm.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:00am)
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:54pm)
The WP community does not define ethics. While consensus is fine for matters not of great ethical import, if the community asks you to do something you feel is unethical, you should ignore them and do what you think is right.
This practice corresponds to Kohlberg's Sixth Stage of Ethical Reasoning. It's also synonymous with tilting at windmills. You can expect the windmill to unceremoniously pitch you over the precipice and into the chasm.
Well, I got banned anyway, just for having been molested as a child. And,
looking back at it all, http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=13384. Ultimately, if you break their
rules, it is a very little thing to them. Worst case scenario, they block you
and move on... and if they don't, that's their problem. But you, you have
to live with what you do.
Posted by: Piperdown
as WP has gotten so grande, voting is the ONLY way to fairly represent the "community" wishes.
problem: ballot box stuffing by puppet shows
cure for puppet shows: either require unique ISP email registration (as per WRev), or real name registration by credit card (no charge) ala Amazon.com, which requires that to do "real name" reviews (right, Gary?).
How to create a WP Democracy:
- each WP user gets to vote
- each WP's vote is weighted
- Vote weighting done by WP editing points score accumateld by that user
- editing points earned by mainspace edit changes as measured in"kb"'s added by that user. this shouldn't be too hard to compute by some sort of bot
just an idea.
this "WP is not a vote" just allows idiots like WP arbcom, bully admins to swoop in and declare their POV=consensus. weighted votes based on objectively calculated WP contribution takes care of current old guarde concerns about meat puppets/"disruptive" noobies/"meatpuppets" hijacking WP decisions
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:32pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
See, consensus does not justify unethical action. Just because the WP
community has a consensus in favour of defamation does not mean that
defamation is okay. Also, when bans become a way of rewriting the
dictionary to redefine consensus in a way that excludes some people's
opinions, the word becomes rather meaningless.
Also, in order for voting to be Sybil attack proof, votes would have to be
weighted according to how many good articles / featured articles the
user had written or helped to write. (And, seeing as how the credit
would often have to be divided among multiple editors, it could get
complex.) This would solve the sockpuppetry problem by making it
irrelevant, so people could use as many sockpuppets as they liked.
That is where the cabal comes in and works like a charm.
If I look over your shoulder and you look over mine, then as long as we are on the same team, and share the same ideals, who needs sockpuppets?
The more powerful cabals at WP depend on votes coming in on their side. They all make sure to
e-mail one another on the outside so as to not be seen canvassing.
Posted by: Piperdown
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:13am)
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:32pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
See, consensus does not justify unethical action. Just because the WP
community has a consensus in favour of defamation does not mean that
defamation is okay. Also, when bans become a way of rewriting the
dictionary to redefine consensus in a way that excludes some people's
opinions, the word becomes rather meaningless.
Also, in order for voting to be Sybil attack proof, votes would have to be
weighted according to how many good articles / featured articles the
user had written or helped to write. (And, seeing as how the credit
would often have to be divided among multiple editors, it could get
complex.) This would solve the sockpuppetry problem by making it
irrelevant, so people could use as many sockpuppets as they liked.
That is where the cabal comes in and works like a charm.
If I look over your shoulder and you look over mine, then as long as we are on the same team, and share the same ideals, who needs sockpuppets?
The more powerful cabals at WP depend on votes coming in on their side. They all make sure to
e-mail one another on the outside so as to not be seen canvassing.
actually they IM each other in real time.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:17pm)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:13am)
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:32pm)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
See, consensus does not justify unethical action. Just because the WP
community has a consensus in favour of defamation does not mean that
defamation is okay. Also, when bans become a way of rewriting the
dictionary to redefine consensus in a way that excludes some people's
opinions, the word becomes rather meaningless.
Also, in order for voting to be Sybil attack proof, votes would have to be
weighted according to how many good articles / featured articles the
user had written or helped to write. (And, seeing as how the credit
would often have to be divided among multiple editors, it could get
complex.) This would solve the sockpuppetry problem by making it
irrelevant, so people could use as many sockpuppets as they liked.
That is where the cabal comes in and works like a charm.
If I look over your shoulder and you look over mine, then as long as we are on the same team, and share the same ideals, who needs sockpuppets?
The more powerful cabals at WP depend on votes coming in on their side. They all make sure to
e-mail one another on the outside so as to not be seen canvassing.
actually they IM each other in real time.
Correctomundo!
Posted by: Moulton
There are many ways to get past the acedia of rejection. My favorite way is with music.
All you really need is a little http://underground.musenet.org:8080/utnebury/numa.numa.html
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:00pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:54pm)
The WP community does not define ethics. While consensus is fine for matters not of great ethical import, if the community asks you to do something you feel is unethical, you should ignore them and do what you think is right.
This practice corresponds to Kohlberg's Sixth Stage of Ethical Reasoning. It's also synonymous with tilting at windmills. You can expect the windmill to unceremoniously pitch you over the precipice and into the chasm.
I agree with this. However a person's principled moral calculus might well also include the value of not disrupting the legitimate expectations of others and keeping one's commitments and promises. This will provide predictability and stability to a person acting out of "universal moral principles" that will often make them difficult to distinguish from persons who operate on other levels of moral development. An "ethical decision" is not a dichotomous matter, there are many gradients of "ethical" and in complex matters "ethics" will raise it's head on both or many sides of the issue. This becomes a very different matter than WP:IAR.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
Posted by: Moulton
It's a little like playing Bridge. A cabal of 10 trumps a quorum. A minyan of sycophants trumps a cabal. And Jimbo trumps all save an alliance of Godwin plus ArbCom. Or not.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:24pm)
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
Good question. Most often it requires JzG and about 4 or 5 friends in his cabal. Then, he goes to work banning and scaring away anyone with a different point of view than his or the groups.
Answer: JzG plus 4.
By the way...did he not quit a few weeks ago...again?
Must be new meds.
Posted by: Piperdown
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:24am)
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
MainSpace Kilobyte Pts voted FOR vs MSKBP vote Against.
3/4's req'd for "consensus".
just throwing shit up against the wall, but with NPOV just the facts ma'am numbers that can't be manhandled - except by adding gratuitous fluff to mainspace to give undue weight to your own voting power - but that would take some serious sissyphissing. this would all work in SV's favour, she should lobby for something like this. of course her heavy KB account is in MYSTERIOUS MOTHBALL MODE. with no explanation. der jimbo silencio!
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:12am)
cure for puppet shows: either require unique ISP email registration (as per WRev),
Especially given the number of cheap dial-up providers, getting multiple ISP
emails isn't that hard. University emails, harder, but most people don't have
those. Also privacy concerns... but then I suppose it's better to be told up
front you don't get to have privacy, if you don't like it don't edit, than to be
outed after the fact.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:12am)
or real name registration by credit card (no charge) ala Amazon.com, which requires that to do "real name" reviews (right, Gary?).
You realise http://www.unicef.org/pon98/civil1.htm do not get birth
certificates? Hence, requiring legal ID would increase the already highly
prevalent problem of classism. Not to mention even more privacy concerns
than above... with the same mitigating factor that it's better to be told up
front than outed after the fact.
QUOTE(Piperdown @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:12am)
How to create a WP Democracy:
- each WP user gets to vote
- each WP's vote is weighted
- Vote weighting done by WP editing points score accumateld by that user
- editing points earned by mainspace edit changes as measured in"kb"'s added by that user. this shouldn't be too hard to compute by some sort of bot
- each WP user gets to vote
- each WP's vote is weighted
- Vote weighting done by WP editing points score accumateld by that user
- editing points earned by mainspace edit changes as measured in"kb"'s added by that user. this shouldn't be too hard to compute by some sort of bot
And hence, sockpuppetry would be irrelevant. I like.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 1st November 2007, 9:31pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:24pm)
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
Good question. Most often it requires JzG and about 4 or 5 friends in his cabal. Then, he goes to work banning and scaring away anyone with a different point of view than his or the groups.
Answer: JzG plus 4.
By the way … did he not quit a few weeks ago … again?
Must be new meds.
U R 2 Y's 4 Me !!!
Yup, that's what it takes for a "community ban".
Or 6 out 10 accounters showing up in a 24-hour period on some obscure ANI page is enough to certify that you have "exhausted the patience" of that undemunerable community.
But to get a "consensus" that determines the fate of an out-of-the-way article, a half-dozen socks of a single person with the optional nudging and winking of any given Admin that happens to wander by or get recruited to weigh in is usually enough to tip the scales of "justice".
Jonny
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:31pm)
By the way...did he not quit a few weeks ago...again?
Must be new meds.
Yes friends try new NoQuits by Hoffman/Sandoz ®. Keeps you at wheel when depression and/or common sense would cause others to abandon thankless tasks. Common side effects include hallucinatory bicycle rides, infatuation with partialized aspects of secondary sexual organs, red and swollen hyperbole, uncontrollable profanity, officious intermeddling, and premature coming of age.
Posted by: WhispersOfWisdom
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:42pm)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 1st November 2007, 9:31pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:24pm)
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
Good question. Most often it requires JzG and about 4 or 5 friends in his cabal. Then, he goes to work banning and scaring away anyone with a different point of view than his or the groups.
Answer: JzG plus 4.
By the way … did he not quit a few weeks ago … again?
Must be new meds.
U R 2 Y's 4 Me !!!
Yup, that's what it takes for a "community ban".
Or 6 out 10 accounters showing up in a 24-hour period on some obscure ANI page is enough to certify that you have "exhausted the patience" of that undemunerable community.
But to get a "consensus" that determines the fate of an out-of-the-way article, a half-dozen socks of a single person with the optional nudging and winking of any given Admin that happens to wander by or get recruited to weigh in is usually enough to tip the scales of "justice".
Jonny
Add a closer that got the nod and that is day!
Posted by: Piperdown
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:42am)
QUOTE(WhispersOfWisdom @ Thu 1st November 2007, 9:31pm)
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:24pm)
Last time I checked, there were approximately 5.7 × 10^6 accounts on the English Wikipedia. Figuring an average of 100 sockpuppets per person, that gives us approximately 5.7 × 10^4 = 57,000 real people registered on the English Wikipedia. I used to do both random-sampled and full population self-selected respondent surveys on association memberships of about that size. Would someone please tell me what they think a reasonable percentage for a quorum would be?
Jonny
Good question. Most often it requires JzG and about 4 or 5 friends in his cabal. Then, he goes to work banning and scaring away anyone with a different point of view than his or the groups.
Answer: JzG plus 4.
By the way … did he not quit a few weeks ago … again?
Must be new meds.
U R 2 Y's 4 Me !!!
Yup, that's what it takes for a "community ban".
Or 6 out 10 accounters showing up in a 24-hour period on some obscure ANI page is enough to certify that you have "exhausted the patience" of that undemunerable community.
But to get a "consensus" that determines the fate of an out-of-the-way article, a half-dozen socks of a single person with the optional nudging and winking of any given Admin that happens to wander by or get recruited to weigh in is usually enough to tip the scales of "justice".
Jonny
I got a Gerard ban. A community of one. With lots of secret lobbying from Slimmy and Gary's sock show. All off-record.
Posted by: AB
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:23am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 1st November 2007, 7:00pm)
QUOTE(AB @ Thu 1st November 2007, 8:54pm)
The WP community does not define ethics. While consensus is fine for matters not of great ethical import, if the community asks you to do something you feel is unethical, you should ignore them and do what you think is right.
This practice corresponds to Kohlberg's Sixth Stage of Ethical Reasoning. It's also synonymous with tilting at windmills. You can expect the windmill to unceremoniously pitch you over the precipice and into the chasm.
I agree with this. However a person's principled moral calculus might well also include the value of not disrupting the legitimate expectations of others and keeping one's commitments and promises. This will provide predictability and stability to a person acting out of "universal moral principles" that will often make them difficult to distinguish from persons who operate on other levels of moral development. An "ethical decision" is not a dichotomous matter, there are many gradients of "ethical" and in complex matters "ethics" will raise it's head on both or many sides of the issue. This becomes a very different matter than WP:IAR.
It's sort of like dating. When you date a person, you ought to be nice to him or her.
There are certain obligations, which depend on the closeness and nature of the
relationship. However, these obligations only extend so far. No good boyfriend or
girlfriend is going to ask you to kill an innocent for him or her. Asking you to defame
someone for him or her generally crosses the line, too, though I suppose if you are
really creative you might think of an exception. And the obligations go both ways.
The first time he or she hits you, leave. If you two end up being a bad match, you
break up. Hopefully, no hard feelings in the end.
See, WP is like an abusive boyfriend. He gets really angry at you and yells at you
and hits you for minor infractions. He tells lies about you to your friends. He hits
at you and tells you to leave, then he stalks you and threatens to hurt you even
more if you actually do leave rather than come crawling back to him, promising to
appease his every whim.
Posted by: everyking
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
Absolutely. Consensus has a very important place, but in larger, more controversial issues, and in those where only two options are available, it has serious weaknesses. Consensus is great as the normal approach to resolving disputes and disagreements, but it's not so great when it's strictly applied in community processes, like AfD or RfA. In these cases, consensus (when employed to the exclusion of voting) actually serves to undermine the power of the community to engage in decision-making, because some individual then has to determine whether or not a consensus exists, and when taken to an extreme this thinking leads to the idea that an admin should not even factor in numbers, but instead just read the discussion and get a "feel" for what people want. This is ultimately a recipe for empowering individual admins and reducing community decision-making to the position of a mere advisory council to the closing admin: the admin, while generally not able to completely disregard the "advice" (by siding with a minority against the majority), has such a large degree of discretion that in any controversial or borderline case he or she will be able to choose an outcome based purely on his or her own preferences and beliefs. Thus there is a paradox in consensus, that it can disempower groups in favor of individuals in positions of power.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 12:23am)
QUOTE(Amarkov @ Fri 2nd November 2007, 1:12am)
Democracy would work pretty well on Wikipedia, actually. A lot of good things happened back when there were votes. But then people seemed to get this strange idea that not voting was a long tradition. Now if you try to decide something by voting, someone will swoop down, delete your poll, and say "CONSENSUS NOT NUMBERS!" And people have begun to ditch even the pretense that Wikipedian consensus takes into account the opinions of those who disagree with the "correct" viewpoint.
Absolutely. Consensus has a very important place, but in larger, more controversial issues, and in those where only two options are available, it has serious weaknesses. Consensus is great as the normal approach to resolving disputes and disagreements, but it's not so great when it's strictly applied in community processes, like AfD or RfA. In these cases, consensus (when employed to the exclusion of voting) actually serves to undermine the power of the community to engage in decision-making, because some individual then has to determine whether or not a consensus exists, and when taken to an extreme this thinking leads to the idea that an admin should not even factor in numbers, but instead just read the discussion and get a "feel" for what people want. This is ultimately a recipe for empowering individual admins and reducing community decision-making to the position of a mere advisory council to the closing admin: the admin, while generally not able to completely disregard the "advice" (by siding with a minority against the majority), has such a large degree of discretion that in any controversial or borderline case he or she will be able to choose an outcome based purely on his or her own preferences and beliefs. Thus there is a paradox in consensus, that it can disempower groups in favor of individuals in positions of power.
Thank you both for illustrating what a massive mockery Wikipedia makes of the very ideas of consensus and democracy, not to mention their practices. But that was never really in question. Hence the funny subtitle. Maybe now we can get back to the question in the title role.
Jonny
Posted by: Jonny Cache
If I had my druthers, I would probably not use the word Governance to describe the issues of information management, on the Internet or anywhere else. It's a mighty fine word in itself, and if one could deploy it with all due awareness of its ancient linkages to Oars, Pilots, Rudders, and Ships of State, not to mention a recognition of its contemporary connections to Cybernetic Governors, then it would be a wingèd word indeed.
But in the context of Website Ownership, I fear that the word plays into the delusion that websites are governments, and thereby hangs our tails in ways that don't make for pretty sites.
So let me just say it, one more time —
We simply must wake up to the fact that websites are not governments, lest we wake up one day, to our dismay, to the fait accompli that they are.
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Moulton
Wikipedia's system of governance operates in a manner reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
I certainly didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Archive#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 16th January 2008, 3:25pm)
Wikipedia's system of governance operates in a manner reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.
I certainly didn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton/Archive#No_One_Expects_the_Spammish_Inquisition.
Oh, I think that one learns to expect it, round about the eleventy-first time that one sees it.
Jonny
Posted by: Moulton
According to Monty Python, the chief weapons of the Spanish Inquisition are Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).
To the naive editor, one would not have expected Wikipedia to reprise that sketch.
But lo and behold, that is their modus operandi.
Posted by: Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 16th January 2008, 3:37pm)
According to Monty Python, the chief weapons of the Spanish Inquisition are Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD).
To the naive editor, one would not have expected Wikipedia to reprise that sketch.
But lo and behold, that is their modus operandi.
I cannot be certain, but I fear that doubt was probably a threat that the Inquisitors felt, and were sorely afflicted with themselves, before it became a threat that they made, and sorely afflicted others with.
Still, we must not let our fascination with the unexpected stand in the way of our seeking an explanation.
Why, exactly, did they act that way then?
Why, exactly, do they act that way now?
Jon Awbrey
Posted by: Moulton
Well, lessee...
In the case of Socrates, he beat their brains out.
In the case of Galileo, he beat their brains out.
I'm detecting a recurring pattern here.
On Wikipedia, it's not all that hard to beat their brains out.
Posted by: Onno
QUOTE(Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. @ Aug 1993)
The importance of preparing individuals for their role as citizens in a democratic society is well documented. However, the reverse assertion is less broadly understood. That is, a democratic environment, in which dialogue and critical thinking are prized, is not only facilitative of but vital to the full development of intelligence. Philosopher Hilary Putnam (1992) refers to what he calls the epistemological justification of democracy which he attributes to John Dewey, "The claim, then, is this: Democracy is not just one form of social life among other workable forms of social life; it is the precondition for the full application of intelligence to the solution of social problems" (p. 180)¹.
¹ Putnam, H. (1992), Renewing Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Source. Awbrey, S.M., and Scott, D.K. (August 1993), "Educating Critical Thinkers for a Democratic Society", presented at 'Critical Thinking : The Reform of Education and the New Global Economic Realities', Thirteenth Annual International Conference of The Center for Critical Thinking, Rohnert, CA. Archived, ERIC Document ED4703251. http://www.umass.edu/pastchancellors/scott/papers/critThink.html.
Our western societies have "representative democracy". And that is just oligarchy with some feedback mechanisms. The people have nothing to say until there are new elections. The elected representatives can break any promise they made to get elected. And usually it is the same bunch that keeps getting elected.
Our free speech laws protect false information, because our governments do not want to decide what is false and true. But many people, organizations and corporations have some interest in spreading out disinformation. So we live in a society where we as participants are bombarded with disinformation. "This expensive cream heals all your wrinkles." "My opponent is incompetent and corrupt" "Jesus cures all your disease." That is why people need to think critically, not to make our society better, but because our society is what it is.
Posted by: Moulton
The need for critical thinking skills is obvious. What is not obvious is how to nurture a culture which values and rewards excellence in keen analytical reasoning.
Socrates was a notable pioneer in logical thinking. His contributions were not valued by the powers that be.
Jesus was a notable pioneer in moral reasoning. His contributions were not valued by the powers that be.
Galileo was a notable pioneer in scientific reasoning. His contributions were not valued by the powers that be.
Darwin and Freud had to fight uphill battles, as well.
We have not yet arrived at the Age of Enlightenment.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
Random Bump
Jon 
Posted by: GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 21st May 2010, 8:43am)
Random Bump
Jon
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=29565&view=findpost&p=237186seems to now believe that the internet is ideology not technology. This might be an improvement over Cult of the Amateur which although it presents a single good idea, which I use constantly, but lacks any breadth. Keen seems to saying from the limited excerpts I've seen that this struggle is between the Federalist (representative democracy) and Anti-Federalist (direct democracy). In this he underestimates the distance from mainstream political forms that WP has traveled. WP does not vote on matters neither directly nor through representatives. For them the highest form of "decision making" is a unilateral individual act (Be Bold, Ignore All Rules) Hit that edit button and see what sticks. They possess the zealot's faith in this bringing about ever better content. When this fails (which it always does) they turn to something they term "consensus." But their version of consensus bears little similarity with that democratic decision making practice used elsewhere. WP consensus amounts to nothing more than round two of individual decision making, this time played out by members with more buttons enabling them to enforce their will.
An ideology that makes individual acts the basis for all decisions is not democracy, direct nor indirect. It is extreme libertarianism. Anarchy doesn't even describe it. Anarchists might oppose the authority of governments but the believe in the formation of voluntary means of mutual assistance. This require planning and some form of democracy. Wikipedia eschews this kind of planning. In fact planning, like expertise and even democracy are antithetical to the ideology of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the war of all against all played out one edit at a time.
Posted by: Jon Awbrey
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Fri 21st May 2010, 11:26am)
Andrew Keen seems to now believe that the internet is ideology not technology. This might be an improvement over Cult of the Amateur which although it presents a single good idea, which I use constantly, but lacks any breadth. Keen seems to saying from the limited excerpts I've seen that this struggle is between the Federalist (representative democracy) and Anti-Federalist (direct democracy). In this he underestimates the distance from mainstream political forms that WP has traveled. WP does not vote on matters neither directly nor through representatives. For them the highest form of "decision making" is a unilateral individual act (Be Bold, Ignore All Rules) Hit that edit button and see what sticks. They possess the zealot's faith in this bringing about ever better content. When this fails (which it always does) they turn to something they term "consensus." But their version of consensus bears little similarity with that democratic decision making practice used elsewhere. WP consensus amounts to nothing more than round two of individual decision making, this time played out by members with more buttons enabling them to enforce there will.
An ideology that makes individual acts the basis for all decisions is not democracy, direct nor indirect. It is extreme libertarianism. Anarchy doesn't even describe it. Anarchists might oppose the authority of governments but the believe in the formation of voluntary means of mutual assistance. This require planning and some form of democracy. Wikipedia eschews this kind of planning. In fact planning, like expertise and even democracy are antithetical to the ideology of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the war of all against all played out one edit at a time.
I think I understand some of what Keen is trying to say, but all in all it's just another
So, Wikipunks are lovers of something else entirely.
Speaking of Individual Ideology, I think I already used the term Idiology somewhere …
Jon
