Rick Falkvinge has been writing a book, "Swarmwise", on how the Pirate Party organised. He's been posting it a chapter at a time to his blog.
You know how Wikipedia/Wikimedia has (or had) the meme that "voting is evil"? This sets out why.
http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwise-the-tactical-manual-to-changing-th...
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and disengage.
- d.
David Gerard, 01/07/2013 12:38:
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and disengage.
Right; to be added to the list of reasons why ranked voting like Schulze was better than the last antagonistic support/oppose for WMF board elections (which also adds incentives to oppose a lot).
Nemo
Rick Falkvinge has been writing a book, "Swarmwise", on how the Pirate Party organised. He's been posting it a chapter at a time to his blog.
You know how Wikipedia/Wikimedia has (or had) the meme that "voting is evil"? This sets out why.
http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/01/swarmwise-the-tactical-manual-to-changing-th...
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and disengage.
- d.
And what is the difference when any Wikipedian with good sense avoids participation in any policy discussion unless there is massive consensus. Practical experience with anarchic decision-making shows that aggressive idiots rule.
Fred
On 07/01/2013 06:38 AM, David Gerard wrote:
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and disengage.
That piece is somewhat thought provoking, but amusingly naive. It starts from the presumption that individual decisions cannot impact the movement or the collective objectives negatively, or that there isn't a collective work whose nature is altered by individual action.
In other words, it advocates empowerment by presuming that individuals cannot make a difference. :-)
-- Marc
On 2 July 2013 16:04, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
That piece is somewhat thought provoking, but amusingly naive.
He claims this is how he did the Pirate Party, so you appear to be claiming that a successful minor political party may work in practice but can't possibly work in theory. Or that he's utterly naive about how they succeeded, but that isn't something one commonly says about politicians.
- d.
On 07/02/2013 11:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
He claims this is how he did the Pirate Party, so you appear to be claiming that a successful minor political party may work in practice but can't possibly work in theory.
I suppose. :-) I'm surprised it did work; if it actually did it this way. That said, I'm not familiar enough with how a political party works to estimate how that would have impacted this kind of organization.
What we are, ultimately, is a commons. Without a process by which we /can/ limit what others can do (something he advocates against) we are doomed to the tragedy others have written about more eloquently than I can.
In other words, while voting may not be the best way to manage a common garden, the ability to prevent someone from salting the ground -- no matter how convinced they are that this will make for better tasting vegetables -- is required. I'm surprised something along those lines doesn't apply to a political party (where, for instance image, is an important shared resource. What would the Pirate Party have done if someone had started to bomb busses in their name without some mechanism of exclusion or a process to decide whether that was an apropriate thing to do for the party?)
-- Marc
On 07/02/2013 11:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
He claims this is how he did the Pirate Party, so you appear to be claiming that a successful minor political party may work in practice but can't possibly work in theory.
I suppose. :-) I'm surprised it did work; if it actually did it this way. That said, I'm not familiar enough with how a political party works to estimate how that would have impacted this kind of organization.
What we are, ultimately, is a commons. Without a process by which we /can/ limit what others can do (something he advocates against) we are doomed to the tragedy others have written about more eloquently than I can.
In other words, while voting may not be the best way to manage a common garden, the ability to prevent someone from salting the ground -- no matter how convinced they are that this will make for better tasting vegetables -- is required. I'm surprised something along those lines doesn't apply to a political party (where, for instance image, is an important shared resource. What would the Pirate Party have done if someone had started to bomb busses in their name without some mechanism of exclusion or a process to decide whether that was an apropriate thing to do for the party?)
-- Marc
Well, how would Marx feel? in the light of history.
Fred
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org