In real life, anarchist groups do not let authoritarian, right-wing people come in and disrupt their meetings. In the same manner, we should not do so here. This crosses over everything - admin powers, banning, page edits and whatnot. I think a bar has to be set. How high or how low can be argued, but it has to be set. I think authoritarian users would be more happy at Wikinfo anyway. And they can come here as well, as long as they're not here to disrupt things. Indymedia does the same thing, it began very open, and then decided to finally stop authoritarian right-wing people from disrupting the site. They don't go far enough for me on some locals, but some of that is a technology issue. If they had a Slashdot like moderation system I could just ignore comments by the idiots there, and they could be as free to post them as I am to not read them.
I am all in favor of a loose system, where power is distributed, but we need a group that trusts each other, and which is very friendly and empowering to newcomers. But we also must realize that some authoritarian people will create scripts to automatically delete and lock every page if that is allowed. There is a balancing act, and we can err on the side of freedom. But a line should be drawn from people trying to build this site and tear it down. Lance Murdoch 10:03, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I was thinking a lot about anti-hierarchy on Anarchopedia. And I think that solution is not to make power structure if we don't need it. We need maintaince, but we don't need to make other kinds of hierarchy. User:Live and let Troll said very good that "the last emergency act" of users against authoritarian maintainers can be getting database dumps and putting it at some less authoritarian place. If we don't have other kinds of hierarchy, all users are equal and we can use principles of direct democracy. If we have someone really destructive on Anarchopedia maintainers can defend Anarchopedia. But, let's talk about that when we find someone really destructive. If we can communicate with person with destructive tendencies, if we can find some solution so that person wouldn't be destructive anymore, there are no needs for "defending Anarchopedia".
- Also, if someone wants to become a maintainer, there are no a lot of "recommendations" for that. (S)he needs to know how to maintain and (s)he needs some personal references in colaborative work. And of course, (s)he needs to be an anarchist or a person which wants to work under anarchist principles :) --Millosh 12:23, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- At the moment, it is possible for any non-blocked user to perform any sysop action. Once the user is blocked, the user cannot edit or perform any action. Currently, this system is vulnerable to abuse from open proxies, but I can set up the Special:Blockip and Special:Ipblocklist code to check for and block open proxies that are attempting to block and unblock users.
- We don't need to worry about this so much now, and our biggest concern should be attracting contributors. If there's an attack, we can directly delete the attacker's blocks from the database as a last resort. This was done to
curwhen wikipedia:user:Vandalbot created massive amounts of "Stop vandalism!!!!" pages. Guanaco 02:03, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Millosh wrote: "How can we know that all of contributors want good to Anarchopedia? "
(which I edited to "How can we be sure that all contributors want what is best for Anarchopedia?")
Answer: You can't. If you are unable to make your peace with that fact, then you have no business trying to maintain a Wiki, let alone an Anarchist Wiki!! - lyberty 23:21, 25 Jan 2005 (CST)
Also, you might want to consider archiving the "open letter" somewhere, and creating an actual, updated encyclopedia definition of the Anarchopedia:sysop policy (including, if you wish, things that were considered when making the policy). - lyberty 23:21, 25 Jan 2005 (CST)
- Article Anarchopedia:en:sysops in this moment is (one of) the place(s) where we can talk about organization of collaborative work on Anarchopedia. A lot of questions are open and some of them will be solved when we make some community (i.e. a group of persons who are interested to take a place in managing Anarchopedia). Also, articles in the name space under "Anarchopedia:" are not encyclopedic (as well as Meta is not encyclopedia: Meta is the place for coordination; eng: is encyclopedia). I think I said a lot of time that I have ethical problem because Anarchopedia's domains and servers are "my" in the sense of capitalist relations in the world. But, I don't want that Anarchopedia is "my project". In the sense of anarchist organization it should be the project of Anarchopedia's contributors. Do you have an idea how to implement anarchist organization in managing Anarchopedia? --Milos Rancic 09:57, 26 Jan 2005 (CST)