Wikipedia talk:Constitution proposal

Wikipedia is not a government. Furthermore, our governing body is the Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. This constitution serves no purpose. Kingturtle 19:20, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * redir policies and guidelines? Martin


 * I would leave it alone for a little while, long enough to assure that the contributors are not still actively developing the page, then redirect. --Michael Snow 19:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a Constitution for Wikipedia.WHEELER 00:06, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * ROTFL! What a great way to turn the troll's minion against her, Kowloonese! Of course, the minion is inanimate and the troll has moved to another wiki, so it doesn't really matter now. Anyway, any encyclopedia with a sufficient amount of content will be inherently adult (see National Geographic swimsuit issue), so this would have to be clarified. This really can do nothing new, but it might be interesting to try to present our workings in the form of a constitution. Wikipedia is not the democratic free-for-all it is sometimes perceived to be; we do have real leaders, and not just ones who have risen in prominence in an anarchist place. It's a system as old as society, which is as old as the system: whoever owns the land or is physically strongest makes the rules (Don't go saying that you elect your lawmakers. It's the same government you're electing them to.) In this case, it's a little bit of both, as Jimbo both owns the site and has a form of control over the Wikipediholics. Of course, I actually think Ias was aiming for a Wikipedia Magna Carta or &mdash; no, never mind, it's something new all together. Old bills of rights have regarded the one's oppression of the masses. This is to prevent the masses from attacking the one. Ias seems to have got it into its head that we've built up a WikiNobility which believes to have total control over Wikipedia and thus, the right to impose a funless, schoolish-type of air over the whole project. Ias had a lot of things against it with WikiSex as the major thing (sort of like the way most think of George W. Bush, substituting the terms "George W. Bush" for "Ias" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for "WikiSex"), but could have turned around. But now she's gone on a sour note, leaving us all a bit glad to be rid of her. Of course, none of this has to do with what her constitution has developed into, so you've wasted your time reading this, as I have wasted time (and bandwidth) typing it. - Woodrow the 23², Emperor of the United States 19:59, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I wrote that? - Herbert 12:35, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)