User talk:The Ungovernable Force/manifesto

Wikipedia realities
In real life there exists a Wikipedia foundation controlled by Jimbo Wales that owns millions of dollars worth of computer equipment that run the processes that constitute the cyber-world cyberspace of Wikipedia. Legally, this is a dictatorship. All the content is licensced so anyone can fork any or all of it, so the encyclopedia data itself is freely copyable. But the process of creating it involves existing hardware/goodwill/community/bandwidth and future hardware/goodwill/community/bandwidth. Voting will not change those realities. WAS 4.250 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * even still, it's a vote of protest, which I find much more desirable than compromising my principles for some "realistic" approach. The Ungovernable Force 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A voice of protest has power to the extent that it can add or subtract to what is valued by those who are to be influenced. Loved ones protesting matters because those being addressed love those who are protesting (this applies in families and really close social relationships). Workers protesting matters because the value of their labor matters. If those who are here to socialize go away, what do those who are here to build an encyclopedia care? WAS 4.250 23:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is there some idea that all of us users with userboxes are merely here to socialize? I have only two people on this project who I socialize with outside of the project--one I knew before they set up an account, and the other I met accidentally at my school after recognizing him based on a picture on his userpage. I'm not going out looking for friends to share my interests. In fact, I spent quite a lot of time and energy trying to improve the anarchism article which is in shambles, before taking a 2 week break. When I got back, imagine my surprise when all these userboxes start getting deleted. I wish this could end so we could get back to writing an encyclopedia, but this cannot happen if we are constantly being harassed by admins with too much power. If you look at my talk page, I even mentioned that I was close to getting rid of my userboxes anyways for different reasons, but this controversy has led me to keep them on principle. I am not just trying to socialize with likeminded people, otherwise I would have a myspace account, which I don't. I find working on this encyclopedia more fulfilling. At the same time, we need to be able to have some fun, and userboxes can help that. Not to mention they help show others where we are coming from and can help in the building of this encyclopedia since they alert people of the POV's we might push without knowing it. The Ungovernable Force 05:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nomic
Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic. I had some doubts about this fact a few months ago. However, it's true. The Land 21:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't a cabal either. Canadianism 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

disagreement
''I moved this off the main page to this talk page, as requested in the notes section. Please keep debates here so as not to make the manifesto page a big long debate.''


 * Disagree - Wouldn't it be better for the encyclopaedia if we just went and wrote some articles rather than having a revolution? --bainer (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better for the encyclopedia if we could write some articles, instead of being harassed by admins for stuff that's in the userspace? --Daniel 03:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Daniel's comment. The Ungovernable Force 05:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just be magnanimous, forget about petty fighting and go write some great articles, knowing that you hold the high ground. --bainer (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess writing great articles is easier for people if they feel comfortable in the community and have the warm feeling of having one's own home/workplace (read: UserPage) designed the way they like it. Misza13 (Talk) 12:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
Note: This was moved from the main page

Neutral -- Taking "sides" only divides us further. Each extreme on this issue has made mistakes. The community can repair itself; I have faith in that. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * some truth to that, but I still think we need to take sides. I do value reasonable discussion though, and think that debating this as rationally as possible is better than engaging in edit wars. I personally think a good compromise would be to undelete the templates for about a week to give everyone time to subset them before they are deleted off of template space. The Ungovernable Force 09:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The community could repair itself if it had a chance to do so. However, we're opposed by authoritarian admins that consider the rules given by god set in stone, which is not how things should be - if a policy makes lots of editors feel uncomfortable (which is the case of expressing opinions and beliefs in user space), shouldn't it be changed? Or at least discussed? Misza13 (Talk) 12:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You forgot the obligatory link to factionalism. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You also forgot to praise the freedom-loving userbox saviours who make up "hundreds of thousands" of users in the community for not censoring you by moving this off the main manifesto. Value your freedom of speech, Adrian! Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the page, it even says in the section "Notice" to take comments and debates to this page. I can't help it if people don't read it. Anyways, I know Adrian and actually felt bad about doing that to him, but like I said, there is a clear notice to put any other comments onto this page otherwise it becomes confusing if a lot of people start putting in "disagree"s and "neutral"s on the main page and I did not want that page to turn into a long debate, I wanted that to be here. I do say to discuss and debate this here, so people should assume there are dissenting comments here and should look at it, and if they don't, then they are being lazy and I can't answer for them, that's there perogative. The Ungovernable Force 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Being specific
This is my personal belief: If something on Wikipedia is inappropriate or needs removing, then the community should have to agree on its removal. We can't just rely on the opinions of one person or a small group of people. We should descide as a community if something needs to be deleted. This greatly reduces the chance for corruption. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 23:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the overall idea of this manifesto, that major policy decisions need to be made by consensus, rather than by a few admins with speedy delete buttons. The Ungovernable Force 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To disentangle some points: I am personally in favor of community control over the creation of relevant policy. I do think, however, that we should generally leave policy enforcement to the admins - with clear community oversight mechanisms, to be sure, but not to the point where the amorphous "community" that emerges just becomes a new cabal. --Daniel 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the point of principle 2: Wikipedia policy discussions need greater publicization to help keep policy debates from turning into an elitist game. If no one knows what policies are being debated, then power will be consolidated in the hands of the few editors who are in the know. This must not happen. That is exactly why I put that in there, I don't want a new elite group of normal users just taking control and keeping others out of the process, we need a large number of users contributing, and if it does turn out that only a few people are engaging in debate, then I would consider that a failure. And if this userbox controversy has taught us anything, we can't trust the admins to make responsible desicions that are in line with community consensus. The Ungovernable Force 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify: the concern I am airing is that we be clear that while admins are ultimately answerable to the editors, they are granted the leeway to act in a decisive manner based on solid policies, that have objective criteria as to what a violation is.


 * What we have currently is a situation where admins who are accountable and of sound principles are being indecisive (given the shaky ground of the policy on which they walk), while a select few (who know who they are) are decisively acting like dicks. --Daniel 02:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I would like to see more accountability on their part, and I think (as mentioned) that rolling adminship would be good, just to keep people from getting too much power and never being challenged. The Ungovernable Force 03:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo quote
Why take that off... s'not a critic, just relevent... 'voting is evil' < jimbo owns wikipedia and implements his own view etc. --  max rspct  leave a message  17:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you think I care what Jimbo says? It seemed to me like a criticism. The Ungovernable Force 03:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ammendment
Hey, I added an ammendment to your manifesto. Check it out. --Shell &lt;e&gt; 12:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

this doesn't make sense
"we as a community should not recognize Jimbo's authority to dictate commands that fly in the face of previous group decisions."

Why shouldn't you respect the wishes of the owner of the website you're playing on for free? I don't understand that. If I were playing (or working) in someone's backyard, and they said "hey, don't do that" about something I was doing, I would either stop doing it, or go somewhere else. Maybe that's just me. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, seeing as I'm an anti-capitatlist I have very different views on property and ownership than most people. I do not recognize intellectual property for one, so as far as I'm concerned, this project belongs to everyone. The Ungovernable Force 05:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that would change things. I'm a realist, myself. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
I note that there are only "signers" permitted on the main page; "Dissenters" and "Neutrals" are not permitted. If you truly believe in consensus, then this is absurd on the face of it. Straw polls are a flawed, but commonly used, method of gauging consensus. This is not. This is a petition. To who are you addressing this petition? Not the community at large, or dissenting and neutral voices would have a place. Could it be Jimbo? It does not appear so, as much of the primary thrust is anti-Jimbo. What precisely is this, and why do you feel it has any merit in the format it currently has? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at my response in the section "Neutral" for an answer to why I want dissent on this page. As for the purpose, it's just here. It's not going to have any affect on anything, other than perhaps raising the issue and making people think. The Ungovernable Force 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)