On 10/19/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/19/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure you're being sarcastic here,
or whether you really mean
it...
Anyway, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy.
--Mgm
For the most part wikipedia is functionaly a democracy that uses super
majorities. There isn't really any other way to run things since any
project that includes (to pick a random example) me and tony sideway
is going to have dificulty reaching a consensus on anything (ok I
think we are on the same side as to letting people without accounts
edit).
I agree totally. Wikipedia used to not be a democracy, but as it has grown
it has become more and more democratic. I should mention that I don't mean a
pure democracy, but rather democracy in the sense of "run by the people,
possibly through elected representatives". What the arb committee says
basically goes, and the arb committee is mostly elected. Yes, the board has
the power to override the arb committee in theory, and the majority of the
board is not elected, but so far that distinction has not actually come into
play (I think).
--
geni
Anthony