Talk to me! :)
- ä»Šæ—¥ã¯- This is æ—¥æœ¬èªž for Good day. Hi! So, I'm here.--Jondel 04:34, 15 Apr 2005 (CDT)
"What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, 'See, this is new'? It has already been, in the ages before us." -- Ecclesiastes, 1:9-10
Read the MeatBall:MeatballWiki.
There is also some good material on the meta.
UninvitedCompany 20:05, 16 Apr 2005 (CDT)
Is Jimbo's power truly unlimited? Theoretically, yes. In practice, of course, Jimbo will not be interested in playing God over the wiki, because this would destroy the encyclopedia he believes in. We don't have to fear that the developers or the board will actually bypass the community—they'd kill the goose laying the golden eggs The only point is that they could. The developers ultimately control all access to the database; the foundation (and by extension the board) ultimately controls the physical resources of the project. Though Wikipedia's independence is continuously increased, the buck must always stop somewhere, and even a well-meaning group of professionals have the potential to make catastrophic decisions.
The only loophole is the possibility of forking. If something truly disastrous happened to Wikipedia, then we could simply set up a new one, using the content of the old one, which can never be withheld. Since forking is a very expensive operation (in all ways imaginable) the event sparking it needs to be so serious that it a significant part of the community wants to put the effort into a fork. It's happened in the beginning with the Spanish Wikipedia, some of whose contributors didn't agree with the then-current power structure, but this was when there was little to fork (and efforts are still underway to undo it). The effort needed to make a fork of the English Wikipedia successful would be Herculean, and the developers and the board therefore have a lot of leeway to do considerable damage to Wikipedia if they insisted on bypassing the community on something—which, of course, they don't, as I explained above. JRM 04:53, 17 Apr 2005 (CDT)
- Well, there you go. Power tremendous; power awesome; but not power unlimited. I cannot imagine that matters will go to that extreme. I just think it is time we, as a community, grow up a little and take responsibility for our own actions. As you say, Jimbo and the Board seem to have little interest in the internal organiziation of the community -- or at least prefer to watch, rather than interfere. It's time for an experiment in open government. [[User:Xiong|— Xiong熊talk]] 10:06, 19 Apr 2005 (CDT)
I am just wandering are you sure that articles about AI should stay on this Anarchopedia (Meta) and not on English version? Unlike (English) Wikipedia, it is OK to keep even personal essays on (English) Anarchopedia. While Meta is the right place for organizational issues of Charter, I think that English Anarchopedia is a better place for encyclopedic and similar articles... This is just an advice. If you have some reason why to keep AI articles here, I don't have anything against it. --Milos Rancic 13:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I tried that, but I can't upload images to eng:anarcho. My account there is too new. Anyway, I'll be deleting all this cruft as soon as I have it worked out. Sorry for any inconvenience. — Xiong熊talk 13:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that you can upload image here and use it on eng: because Anarchopedias on MediaWiki 1.6 are using the same repository for images (this one); something like Commons on Wikimedia. --Milos Rancic 14:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Everything is OK :) Don't worry. There is enough paper for writing and move it into the trash... :) --Milos Rancic 07:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, maybe you would be interested in our 1st General Meeting: if you feel that you are the part of our community or a friend of us, then you are welcome to take a part in our organizational issues. --Milos Rancic 07:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)