We need voting. Some people here are advocating for a "republic". Who are they to declare that they are an expert on experts? We must have voting. There are issues to be resolved. Obviously we do not want to be dominated by a "majority" of generated IPs. But we must have voting.
We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Democracy is a difficult concept. Should we accept it we are then facecd with the decision of whether to have a representative or pure democracy. I argue, in the spirit of the founding fathers of America (who argued for a blend between a republic and a pure democracy ie the representative democracy), I argue for a blend between the pure democracy and the representative democracy.
We must have a vote. This first vote is very simple. It will ask
Should we start voting?
One can either say Yes, No, or give a user name. If you give a user name then your vote will be identical to that users vote. In that manner, somebody that is unsure of what to vote for, can give way to another whom they believe will make the correct choice.
Once we have a decision to start voting we can then work out the details of such a proces, THROUGH VOTING.
There is one minor detail that must be decided and that is, "Who can vote in this first question?" Shall we limit it to mav and larry sanger? Perhaps we will let Epopt and Cunctuator contribute their opinion as well. On the other hand we could let everyone vote and Fucking Asshole, Lear, and 63.32 will weigh in heavily with their opinions.
This decision must be made. We must vote and we must choose who can vote.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 18:19, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Quite declaratively put. But where's the fire? The Anti-American Wikipedians page was deleted, but then it was undeleted. I'd say the only problem is that you're not a sysop; then you could have undeleted it yourself.
The only other problem is that, as I see it, there's a basic inconsistency in having both meta and the Wikipedia: namespace, since they serve overlapping functions, and overlapping functionality leads to conflict. But I'm willing to go with the implicit rule of "If it annoys somebody, put it on meta."
While the rest of the world came to to the conclusion that America is just a jumped up banana-republic junta run by a bunch of crypto-fascists with a finger glued permanently to the self-destruct button a long time ago, you're not allowed to point it out in Wikipedia. How thoroughly refreshing to be working on such an enlightened project. Dickens' Ministry of Circumlocution would have been proud of the people who deleted that page.
rgds
Steve Callaway ----- Original Message ----- From: Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 11:19 PM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] voting
We need voting. Some people here are advocating for a "republic". Who are they to declare that they are an expert on experts? We must have voting. There are issues to be resolved. Obviously we do not want to be dominated by a "majority" of generated IPs. But we must have voting.
We must end the nonsense. Never again must a page like, "Anti-American Wikipedians" be deleted on the say-so of some elitist. We must vote on such issues. Never again should the name of Munchen or Colombo be decided by some American with administrative powers. We must vote on such issues and we must start this voting process soon.
Democracy is a difficult concept. Should we accept it we are then facecd with the decision of whether to have a representative or pure democracy. I argue, in the spirit of the founding fathers of America (who argued for a blend between a republic and a pure democracy ie the representative democracy), I argue for a blend between the pure democracy and the representative democracy.
We must have a vote. This first vote is very simple. It will ask
Should we start voting?
One can either say Yes, No, or give a user name. If you give a user name then your vote will be identical to that users vote. In that manner, somebody that is unsure of what to vote for, can give way to another whom they believe will make the correct choice.
Once we have a decision to start voting we can then work out the details of such a proces, THROUGH VOTING.
There is one minor detail that must be decided and that is, "Who can vote in this first question?" Shall we limit it to mav and larry sanger? Perhaps we will let Epopt and Cunctuator contribute their opinion as well. On the other hand we could let everyone vote and Fucking Asshole, Lear, and 63.32 will weigh in heavily with their opinions.
This decision must be made. We must vote and we must choose who can vote.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive medley & videos from Greatest Hits CD
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org