Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

Anarchopedia:en:Elves

2006-04-04T08:21:46Z

Styrofoam Sam: Anarchopedia:en:Elves moved to Elves with green shoes filled with styromfoam

#REDIRECT [[Elves]]

Straw man

2006-04-04T08:21:45Z

Styrofoam Sam: Straw man moved to Stilt man

Usually not a human at all, a [[Straw man|straw man]] is a weak idea purposely set up in order to be destroyed. A user who is a straw man is, perhaps, a clueless [[Vandal|vandal]] -- it is not difficult to attack him and win.

it:a

2006-04-04T08:21:45Z

Styrofoam Sam: it:a moved to tit:a filled with styromfoam

[[lx:it:anarchÃa|anarchÃa]],

lx:en:democracy

2006-04-04T08:21:44Z

Styrofoam Sam: lx:en:democracy moved to lx:en:autocracy filled with styromfoam on stilts

[[en:dictionary|index]]

== democracy: ==

*representtative or other form of government by the public; society where all men are looked on as equal

(noun)
----
{{lx:democracy}}
<div><small>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:template:lx:democracy|action=edit}} edit]</small></div>

== ==
<small>Notes:</small></BR>

Black bloc

2006-04-04T08:21:44Z

Styrofoam Sam: Black bloc moved to Black stilt bloc filled with styromfoam

A '''Black Bloc''' is an [[anarchist]] [[patroll]] of a major protest or demonstration. Their role is:
*to assert the strong right to [[anonymity]], often wearing black masks
*to protect nonviolent protestors (ordinary [[trolls]]) from the police
*to distract the police and prevent them from executing a planned attack on the nonviolent protestors
*to convince police officers to quit working on behalf of the oppressors

The '''Black Bloc''' are a valuable [[Anarchopedia:Faction]].

Heroes of the Black Bloc include:

* ''... who else? ...''

See also: {{faction bar}}

Sparewheel

2006-04-04T08:21:41Z

Styrofoam Sam: Sparewheel moved to Sparewheel filled with styromfoam

Supporters of a troublesome user; "yes-men". This association is semi-permanent.

it:n

2006-04-04T08:21:40Z

Styrofoam Sam: it:n moved to it:n filled with styromfoam

[[lx:it:nascita|nascita]],

mechanistic bias

2006-04-04T08:21:39Z

Styrofoam Sam: mechanistic bias moved to mechanistic bias filled with styromfoam

A '''mechanistic bias''' is what arises from an unquestioned acceptance of the [[mechanistic paradigm]] in one's own life. It is part of the [[systemic bias]] of all [[large public wiki]]s for instance, including [[Wikipedia]] and [[Disinfopedia]].

It may lead inexorably to [[authoritarian bias]] via [[God's Eye View]] imposed by [[technological escalation]] along a typical [[command hierarchy]]. ''See [[Frederick Engels]], ''[[On Authority]]'' for a convincing exposition of this view.''

[[To anarchize]] is to overcome both mechanistic and authoritarian bias, and so achieve an [[anarchization]], which in turn prevents arbitrary [[organization]] beyond body limits. ''See [[anarchize:body, cognition and senses]] for some specific proposals on how to do this for [[Anarchopedia:Itself]] - probably easier for Anarchopedia than [[Wikipedia]] as [[Anarchopedia:We]] do not share this bias.''

capitalist system

2006-04-04T08:21:38Z

Styrofoam Sam: capitalist system moved to Syrofoam system on stilts

Class liberation is the liberation of the people from their oppressors â€“ liberation from their laws and values, from their modern slavery system.
People are at the centre of the universe, there are no others yet â€“ they/we the people must be at the center of any and all considerations, theoretico-practical and aesthetic.
Economy is designed to destroy the people and turn them into a generation of replaceable salves, for production, peons for war and for serving at order â€“ the techno-servant.
People are reproduced for serving the state and the party, generations are created to serve the organization headed by the richest and most viscous people on earth â€“ you can tell by the living conditions of their employees.
Profit means a broad daylight labor robbery, the higher the profit the more miserable people become, the more prosperous the ruling class, more people join the ranks of the unemployed and have a long brutish life and utter poverty.

Authority should be eliminated and hierarchy broken up for ever and this means the end of stupid competition, the heart and soul of degenerative capitalism.
We are celebrating Anarcho-liberation â€“ personal, social and eventually material liberation â€“ The transformation of national struggle into a class struggle and into a social movement of liberation. Crush local and foreign occupation by revolutionary activity of direct and subversive action + the manipulation of reaction for the intensification of the state-nation and capital total crises.
The end of capitalism is near â€“ the end of the empire is almost now and here. The transformation of class struggle and liberation into a full blown Anarcho-social revolution for we donâ€™t want to slave under capitalism anymore. Anarchy is the only guarantee for our total and lasting equity and freedom.
Religion is an old form of capitalism and democracy is the new form of capitalism â€“ both are exactly same â€“ religion like capitalism is all about greed and lust for the erotically unsatisfied public.

Money is their ultimate god and the root of all crime and violence â€“ desperation within the spectacle.
If a revolution could be made peacefully a revolution would be unnecessary â€“ Intervention from another place â€“ an attitude from another magnitude and dimension
Post internet multi-action â€“ the new psycho-emotional mental/intellectual rebel person.

A crisis caused by the collapse of the psycho-emotional "state of affair" â€“ a transformation to a new level of development or an inter-personal implosion into the abyss.
The creation of a new Anarcho-revolutionary self-determination and self-creation, equipped with an extreme form of a radicalized insurrect intellect.
The advancement of feelings and thoughts and knowledge to a higher matrix of comprehension and pragmatic meta-synthesis.
We have no self-pity but the courage to fight for what is right and just and humane, that is why we are revolutionaries fighting for our freedom and others. A radical shift of the attitude towards the people of the globe, through the acquirement of an alternative consciousness of revolt and emancipation.
The tragic effect of contemporary capitalism on the self and on society â€“ A conscious selection of the instructive + constructive elements in modern slavery, accompanied by a total systematic rejection and repulsion of the negative = state-capitalism.
A compassion and tolerance towards the poor and the downtrodden â€“ solidarity on an Anarcho-revolutionary level and cooperation.
All parliaments will be shut down and governments dissolved and sent home â€“ the army and police dismantled and the banks distributed equally.
The individual effect on the magnitude and on the objective condition (his-story) and the universal application of this personal crisis â€“ The End of Alienation and Ramification.
The termination of mythology, religion and politics which are the sciences of lies and deceit â€“ delimitation of the ontologico-epistimological self.

1) Anti-capitalism means anti-religion, anti-philosophy, anti-science, anti-ethics.
2) Anti-capitalism means anti-ideology, anti-nationalism, anti-state, anti-power.
3) The maintenance of capitalism is the maintenance of mass poverty, organized violence and brute barbaric institutional force.
4) The people of the globe will rise in their might very soon â€“ when consciousness rises people learn and revolt.
5) When the mind begins to feel freedom the person rebels.
6) The rich must be equalized with poor â€“ all of humanity rich in matter and culture.
7)
No one should suffer again because of someone else â€“ anyone who advocates for capitalism is advocating for more violence and crimes against humanity â€“ the advocacy for capitalism is an advocacy for a permanent class war until the revolution of course.
Capitalism is always against the majority of the impoverished people â€“ capitalism is local and foreign terrorism in disguise, counter-terrorism is exactly the same.
A system that enslaves the majority of the people is doomed to a complete destruction unless it resorts to an organized terrorism and violence (war) or nuclear holocaust (military science).
Anarcho-Theoretical Practice + the wo/man that killed nostalgia and meta-physics.
Beyond fear, superstition and tradition â€“ does humility results from humiliation and exploitation? Do all the values and morality arise out of despair, class division, ignorance and extreme discrimination?
To the majority of computer users of the world unite, the role of the Anarcho-revolutionary surfer on the net/web â€“ that's what I have to say â€“ the way things are â€“ the way they ought to be. Let me put it this way â€“ do we always have to start from scratch â€“ it seems so â€“ because all you people everywhere, on the net and otherwise â€“ beside the few â€“ you are all variably similar, as indicated by your synonymous anonymity.
Most of you require urgently the theoretico-practical knowledge, a universal Anarcho-navigation, a post-historical anti-consumerism â€“ the annihilation of the spectacle.
Existence within an established illusion and corporate hallucination â€“ How do socialized pigeons behave, birds fly we walk tall.
A very unfortunate human condition/situation > Anarcho-optimism > Activism toward the construction and the rebuilding of the future = Meta-his-story.
The socio-anarchic social revolution has started, it time now for you to join and take part in designing your sovereign future. From a revolution to an Anarcho-communist individualist society that is based on total equality and total freedom.
The people who changed the world â€“ a revolution in the making.

Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

2006-04-04T08:21:37Z

Styrofoam Sam: Charter/Drafts/Trifecta moved to Charter/Drafts/Trifecta filled with styromfoam

{{:Charter/Nav}}

''this material excerpted from [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicy_trifecta Wikipedia:Policy trifecta] [[2005]] [[April 30]]''

==Text==

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia created by a community using a wiki. Those three basic characteristics suggest three basic guiding principles for editors, of which all others are corollaries:

* as an encyclopedia: '''[[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]''' - our basic editorial policy
** Corollaries: Conventions on [[WP:MOS|style]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability]], [[WP:CITE|citation]], [[WP:DP|deletion]], [[WP:NOR|original research]], etc.

* as a community: '''[[m:Don't be a dick|Don't be a dick]]''' - our basic social policy
** Corollaries: [[WP:COOL|Keep your cool]], [[WP:FAITH|assume good faith]], [[WP:NPA|avoid personal attacks]].
** Strongly implied are the [[WP:1RR|one revert rule]] and [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] [[m:Polls_are_evil|as opposed to voting]]

* as a wiki: '''[[WP:IAR|Ignore all rules]]''' - the suggested personal policy
** Corollaries: [[WP:BOLD|Be bold]], avoid [[m:instruction creep|instruction creep]]

Talk:Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

2006-04-04T08:21:37Z

Styrofoam Sam: Talk:Charter/Drafts/Trifecta moved to Talk:Charter/Drafts/Trifecta filled with styromfoam

== Not assertive ==

This draft does not assert itself as a foundation document. It references 16 other documents. (!) [[User:Xiong|— [[User:Xiong|Xiong]][[Special:Emailuser/Xiong|<font color="#997749">熊</font>]][[User talk:Xiong|talk]]]] 05:13, 30 Apr 2005 (CDT)

Charter/Sources/Worst cases

2006-04-04T08:21:37Z

Styrofoam Sam: Charter/Sources/Worst cases moved to Ch filled with styromfoamst cases

'''Worst cases''' are bad. They are very bad. They are, by definition, as bad as cases can get. There are no cases that are more bad than the worst ones.

They are not so bad that you don't believe they could happen, though - things so bad you don't believe in them yourself are [[threats]]. A worst case is something you can quantify in terms of wasted time, wasted effort, failed [[visions]] and many frustrated attempts to reach [[best cases]], which seem to be working and then just fail.

The [[status quo]] should be stated in terms of these worst cases first and foremost - the worst form a kind of reporting language in which you can talk about what's going on, commiserate, and find a [[w:basis of unity|basis of unity]] on which to go drink beer. Remember - people look at the [[status quo]] report not to satisfy themselves that "things are fine" but rather to find more stuff to complain about. So help them. It all starts here by listing worst cases:

==Internal==
''These cases result from the failure of the Wikipedia community. We can mitigate their effects or prevent them altogether.''

===Tunnel vision===

====The encyclopedia that Slashdot built====
A small editorial clique based in academia always dominates the wikipedia - it never really manages to deal with clandestine literature that's kept off the web, fast-proliferating terminology, populist challenges to academic bias, or fully escape a "mathematics and physics centric" view of the world. [[w:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] becomes a shallow convention, and self-appointed censors shred everything that disagrees with their own [[w:cosmology|cosmology]] daily. Talented people avoid wiki, figuring it has no real [[value system]]. The [[three billionth user]] never arrives.

====Two worlds====
The [[board]] consists only of traditional academics and librarians and a few eager technologists. They express little interest in innovative [[funding]] methods, and none in refining the [[ontology]] or understanding [[community]] problems that are holding back the project. They permit the [[IP Death Squad]] to define "[[vandalism]]", limit [[edit wars]], and patrol for copyright risk, and no effective control over these activities is ever exercised. The Wikipedia has a mind/body division for board/sysops, in a permanent coma or sleepwalking, with the 'mind' unable to exercise any control over the 'body'.

The size of the Wikipedia stabilizes, but its quality rather sharply declines as other projects (with or without the GFDL) copy the projects' most effective attributes and ignore its mistakes. A responsible board is recruited for these other projects, but it must fork the database and jettison Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is effectively dead.

===Majority rule===
====Original research====
Some users see Wikipedia as a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. They push their agendas and non-standard terminologies, infesting articles all over the place with half-baked pet theories.

====Hostile newbies====
People jump into Wikipedia without trying to understand the community that has built up around it or the goals the community has set. They refuse to work with others unless they get to set the terms. They make threats to call in like-minded friends to force their particular agendas, taking advantage of Wikipedia's open participation policy.

====Tyranny of the majority====
Authors think more about what they ''can'' do, rather than what they ''should'' do. More and more disputes are resolved by [[edit wars]] of attrition. Articles end up being written not from a neutral point of view that is acceptable to almost all ''readers'', but from a partisan point of view that is considered ideal to 51% of the ''editors''. Attempts to resolve such issues by enlarging space are stymmied by the desire to avoid duplication. The victorious majority see no reason to collaborate with the minority, and indeed see such collaboration as "defeat".

===Minority rule===

====Elitist goons====
Mild examples of any or all of the above serve as excuses for the various elitist goons composing the [[IP Death Squad]] to assume their own virtue exceeds that of their foes. A small group captures [[sysop]] privileges and bans all those with varying views. No [[Wikimedia:Board of Trustees|Board of Trustees]] structure evolves to put limits on such activities, and "little tin god syndrome" enables a small group of technologists to control what is or is not expressed in the [[Wikipedia]]. No [[funding]] arrives, due in part to the impossibility of guaranteeing respect for notable talents that would attract it. Wikipedia degrades from an encyclopedia to a big weblog.

====Use of force against demonstrators====
Sysops and founders use force against demonstrators, claiming "cybercrime" includes responding to the invitation "Anyone, including ''you'' can edit an article now" after an admin attempts to selectively exclude some writers. While claiming anyone can contribute, sysops and founders gradually establish who is part of "anyone" and who is not. Disillusioned with being excluded from the meta-human category of "anyone", contributors who sysops have banned decide it is legitimate to protest the actions of dehumanizing sysops. They contribute strictly benign or otherwise relevant political information to articles in flagrant violation of the ban, laying the foundation in the event of a criminal court case. Eventually, sysops succeed in recruiting law enforcement assistance, who conduct a series of early morning armed raids on writers who sysops have banned. One banned writer is suprised when police commit raids and is accidentally killed when local rookie police officer thinks suspect is armed. Jimbo gets world wide reputation for using lethal force against educational and political writers. In court, the criminal suspects disclose the genuinely educational material they contributed as "cybercriminals" leaving sysops and founders to appear as censors. Media feeds on stories of Wikipedia supressing free speech. Suspects file civil suit, alleging entrapment by sysops. Founder appears on media claiming use of force was justified to protect his project from criminals.

===Overspecialization===

====Catering to sifters====
The [[sifter]] becomes the primary consumer of the project, leading to a proliferation of specialist versions which are rubber-stamped by one group or another. These grow steadily distinct, as less effort goes into stabilizing the most common concepts' articles, and more effort goes into specialist 'terms of art', incomprehensible even to practitioners of a closely related discipline. Academic ossification sets in, and nothing that attempts to integrate or cross-examine multiple fields of study from an ethical point of view, nor from an under-represented group's point of view, can break through the academic [[en:groupthink|groupthink]] that asserts only its own values: knowledge as a universal positive good, academic reputation as a reliable way to gauge trust, challenge to non-academic knowledge as some kind of [[troll]].

The size of the Wikipedia grows exponentially, and integration of multiple points of view into comprehensive articles that say new things is very rare. Wikipedia becomes like the web itself, an easy way to get cheap backup for any foolish thing one might say, as long as it's said in obscure enough language.

====Western imperialism====
American editors take over the control of Wikipedia, with no reaction whatsoever of other english-speaking editors. They manage in deleting every comment and article scratching the pride of America, and stuff the encyclopedia with numerous articles bashing the ones who dare disagreeing with US.

Wikipedia goes on growing, but non-american editors participation drop. Wikipedia is widely considered as another US [[propaganda]] tool, and ends being a biased tool read only by american and pro-america users.

One case being the notoriously pollution-friendly views of the US government(not just Bush, but the issues that went ignored without interruption over the generation).

It is notoriously impossible for example to convince enough wikipedians raised in english not to always delete as "obviously some nutcase - no need to check his links" some information about the USA's various 'completely safe' pollutions that are banned in the rest of the world as 'highly toxic' or 'banned - no safety data'. People aren't willing to even let the highly verifiable "country X banned product Y" listed under some issues that are taken for granted. So USA propaganda issues and pollution are put into the most favorable light possible, lying by omission of every other view.

This isn't a USA-unique trend, nor is it strongest in the USA; wikipedia in other languages have their own cultural dogma and the idea that the dogma might be false doesn't strike everybody so opposing ideas are deleted without hesitation or verification. People part of that culture that realise the dogma is false don't add it back because it isn't *their* edit war. They let someone who has much more time and social respectability than them to lose do it!

For some issues, it's whoever spends the most time deleting other POV or the NPOV who win and adding content can't help you against those people(This would occur even without the NPOV rule). USA obviously has more wikipedians united on some issues than the rest of the english world so of course their dogma has more hold on wikipedia than any other country's dogma...

The [[three billionth user]] never arrives.

----

Perhaps the more relevant worst case of ''American Imperialism'' is that Wikipedia is '''perceived''' across the world as being too American or too Western.

===Wiki community size inherently limited===
Draft worst case scenario written from mythical dreary future.

It becomes apparent or "scientifically" or empirically proven that Wikis are inherently not scalable on the web. They tend to stabilize at between 30 and 75 participants. No mechanisms ever evolved, were engineered, or were innovatively applied and improved to usability; that effectively allowed established groups to embrace newcomer's contributions. Above a certain size groups insisted that newcomers self indoctrinate to the existing collective worldview and customs. Below a certain size even fanatics and incurable optimists get bored or discouraged and move on leaving another dead internet stub/domain. This limits the effective size of online "communities" to small teams capable of only small rather insignificant projects.

====Synopsis====
One of the first data points was the Wikipedia attempt to foster collaboration from a wide diverse group of volunteers to establish and maintain an online summary of human knowledge. As content and usage increased it suddenly became woefully apparent to a few newcomers and oldtimers at a time that insufficient tools or forums existed for newcomers to impact the collective existing "consensus" that was alleged to exist by some but alleged to be insufficient, murky or selectively applied via clique, mob, militia or cabal designation by others. Queries regarding procedures and appropriate usage or contribution often led to troll designation and eventual departure of newcomers. This would of course limit the scalability of wikipedia locally and could lead to a fork, mirror or commercial competitor achieving the greater coveted "mind share".

As potentially valuable contributors departed back to the "communities" elsewhere that previously provided them better reception or on to other alleged communities that embraced and extended their differing opinions into the community; Wikipedia developed a negative reputation on the internet and eventually died out or restricted itself to a small manageable community with insufficient resources to achieve its grandiose goal of an online free encyclopedia.

The internet through myriads of failures such as these above turns out not to be the communications tool enabling the singularity in human history. It turns into a non participatory broadcast media where a few can control content viewed by the masses for personal agendas or profit. [[user:mirwin]]

==External==
''These may arise without warning, regardless of Wikipedians' actions. Thus, they may be much worse than the internal issues if they occur.''

===Copyright===
Stupid [[w:copyright|copyright]] problems kill the wiki dead as soon as it gets to the point of competing with [[w:commercial encyclopedias]]. No one can safely use the text in education without being hit by lawsuits based on [[w:WTO|WTO]] rules preventing competition with education corporations, which gradually take over the dispensation of all knowledge - and put everyone in deep debt.

===Internet worm===
An extremely successful [[w:internet worm|internet worm]] activates on many thousands of computers worldwide, solely targeting Wikipedia. In the following [[w:distributed denial of service attack|distributed denial of service attack]], millions of articles with random names are created which transclude each other recursively, in every Wikipedia domain. Wikipedia is forced to employ strong account validation methods.

===Inability to gain donation when telling the truth===
For the record, I convinced people at my office not to contribute to wikipedia. Because one article of wikipedia has been speaking some USA dogma rather than easily verifiable truth on some issues.

I however suspect that letting the dogma in will produce more donation than the uncomfortable truth, as many people don't like to hear it!

The worst case scenarios would be either:

* Telling the whole uncomfortable truth and dying off thru less donation because people prefer dogma (unlikely, but does 'dogma money' have an influence? I think not. Not yet.)

* Letting the dogma in and being no better than other encyclopedias in regard to scientific truth on some issues. This seems to be the case right now.

== References ==

Adapted from the Meta-Wikipedia article, "worst cases" http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worst_cases , used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Aleksandar Berkman, Å ta je komunistiÄki anarhizam: Kako sistem radi

2006-04-04T08:21:34Z

Styrofoam Sam: Aleksandar Berkman, Šta je komunistički anarhizam: Kako sistem radi moved to Alhjhgeksandar Berkman, Šta je komun filled with styromfoam

[[zb:Aleksandar Berkman, Å ta je komunistiÄki anarhizam?|sadrÅ¾aj]]

----

=Kako to sistem radi?=

Razmisli i pogledaj malo bolje kako to sistem "funkcioniÅ¡e".

Pogledaj kako su izvrnuli Å¾ivot i njegovo pravo znaÄenje. Vidi koliko je tvoj Å¾ivot zatrovan i ojaÄ‘en jednim suludim ureÄ‘enjem.

Gde je smisao Å¾ivota, gde je radost Å¾ivljenja ?

Zemlja je bogata i prekrasna, blistavi suncevi zraci miluju ti srce. Ljudski genij i rad su pobedili sile prirode i upregli munje i vazduh u korist covecanstva. Nauka i pronalasci, ljudska industrija i rad stvorili su neizrecivo bogatstvo. Premostili smo prostrana mora, parna maÅ¡ina je poniÅ¡tila razdaljinu, elektriÄna varnica i motor na benzin oslobodili su Äoveka iz okova tla i Äak su porobili atmosferu da radi po njegovoj naredbi. Pobedili smo prostor i povezali smo i najdalja mesta na planeti. Ljudski glas sada kruÅ¾i atmosferom i plavim nebesima, noseci ÄoveÄji pozdrav svim ljudima na svetu.

Pa ipak, ljudi jecaju pod teÅ¡kim teretom i nema radosti u njihovim srcima. Njihovi Å¾ivoti su puni bede, njihove duÅ¡e su hladne, pune Å¾elja i potreba. SiromaÅ¡tvo i zloÄin ispunjavaju svaku zemlju, hiljade ljudi su Å¾rtve bolesti i ludila, rat kasapi milione i donosi tiraniju i izrabljivanje u njihovim Å¾ivotima.

ÄŒemu sva ta beda i ubistva u tako bogatom svetu ? ÄŒemu sav bol i patnja na zemlji punoj plodova prirode i sunÄeve svetlosti ?

"To je boÅ¾ja volja", kaÅ¾e crkva.

"Ljudi su loÅ¡i", kaÅ¾e zakonodavac.

"Tako mora da bude", kaÅ¾e budala.

Da li je to istina ? Da li stvarno mora tako da bude ?

Ti i ja i svako od nas, svi mi hoÄ‡emo da Å¾ivimo. Imamo samo jedan Å¾ivot i s pravom hoÄ‡emo da iz njega izvuÄemo najviÅ¡e. Mi Å¾elimo malo radosti i sunÄeve svetlosti dok smo Å¾ivi. Å ta Ä‡e da nam se desi kada umremo, to ne znamo. Niko ne zna. Dobre su Å¡anse da kada jednom umremo - ostaÄ‡emo mrtvi. Kako god bilo, dokle god Å¾ivimo, naÅ¡e celo bice Å¾udi za radoÅ¡cu i smehom, za suncem i sreÄ‡om. Priroda nas je takvim naÄinila. Tako je stvorila i tebe i mene i milione drugih kao Å¡to smo mi, da Äeznu za Å¾ivotom i radoÅ¡cu. Da li je pravedno i doliÄno da nam sve to bude uskraÄ‡eno i da zauvek ostanemo robovi Å¡aÄice ljudi tako gospodare nama i naÅ¡im Å¾ivotima?

Da li bi to mogla da bude "BoÅ¾ja volja", kao Å¡to to crkva propoveda ?

Ako Bog postoji, on mora biti pravedan. Da li bi on dozvolio da nas varaju i da nam otmu Å¾ivot i njegove radosti ? Ako Bog postoji, on bi morao biti naÅ¡ otac i svi ljudi bi bili njegova deca. Da li bi jedan dobar otac dopustio da neka njegova deca gladuju i Å¾ive u nemaÅ¡tini dok druga imaju toliko da ne znaju Å¡ta Ä‡e sa tim ? Da li bi on kaznio hiljade, Äak i milione, svoje dece ubistvom ili masakrom samo zbog slave nekog kralja ili profita nekog kapitaliste ? Da li bi on odobrio nepravdu, nasilje i ubistvo ? Ne, moj prijatelju, ne moÅ¾eÅ¡ verovati da je takav dobri otac, da je pravedan Bog. Ako ti ljudi govore da Bog Å¾eli takve stvari, oni te laÅ¾u.

MoÅ¾da Ä‡eÅ¡ reÄ‡i da je Bog dobar, ali da su ljudi ti koji su loÅ¡i i da je to razlog Å¡to je sve tako pogreÅ¡no na ovome svetu.

Ali ako su ljudi loÅ¡i, ko ih je takvim stvorio ? Ti valjda ne verujeÅ¡ da je Bog stvorio ljude loÅ¡im, jer bi u tom slucaju on bio za to odgovoran. Ako su ljudi loÅ¡i, to znaÄi da ih je neÅ¡to drugo napravilo takvim. Ovo bi moglo da bude taÄno. IstraÅ¾imo to malo bolje. Idemo da vidimo kakvi su ljudi, Å¡ta su oni i kako Å¾ive i kako ti Å¾iviÅ¡.

Od najranijeg detinjstva ubacivano ti je u glavu da moraÅ¡ postati uspeÅ¡an, da moraÅ¡ da stvaraÅ¡ novac. Novac znaÄi raskoÅ¡, sigurnost, moÄ‡. Nije bitno ko si, ljudi te mere po tome koliko "vrediÅ¡", po veliÄini bankovnog racuna.

Tako su te uÄili i svako drugi je na isti naÄin uÄen. Da li ti je onda Äudno da je svaciji Å¾ivot postao trka za novcem, za dolarom i da se tvoje celo biÄ‡e pretvorilo u borbu za imetak, za bogatstvo ?

Glad za novcem nastaje na onome Å¡to je hrani. SiromaÅ¡an se bori za Å¾ivot, za malo ugodnosti. ImuÄ‡an hoÄ‡e joÅ¡ veÄ‡e bogatstvo da bi mu ono dalo sigurnost i zaÅ¡titilo ga od straha od sutraÅ¡njice, a kada on postane veliki bankar, ne sme da se opusti, mora uvek budno da pazi na konkurente iz straha od gubljenja trke od nekog drugog.

Tako je svako primoran da uÄestvuje u toj ludoj trci i glad za imetkom joÅ¡ viÅ¡e obuzima Äoveka. Ona postaje najvaÅ¾niji deo njegovog Å¾ivota. Svaka misao se vrti oko novca, sva energija je usmerena na sticanje bogatstva i sada Å¾eÄ‘ za bogatstvom postaje manija, ludilo koje zahvata sve - i one koji imaju, i one koji nemaju.

Na taj naÄin Å¾ivot je izgubio svoj pravi smisao radosti i lepote. Pretvorio se u nerazuman, divlji ples oko zlatnog teleta, suludo oboÅ¾avanje boga Mamona. U tom plesu i molitvi, Äovek je Å¾rtvovao sve svoje bolje osobine srca i duÅ¡e - dobrotu, pravdu, Äast i ljudskost, strast i saoseÄ‡anje sa svojim bliÅ¾njima.

"Svako za sebe i Ä‘avo ce se radovati" - to mora da postane princip i motiv veÄ‡ine ljudi u takvim uslovima. Da li je onda zapanjujuÄ‡e da se u toj ludoj trci za novcem razvijaju najgore ljudske osobine - pohlepa, zavist, mrÅ¾nja i najniÅ¾e strasti ? ÄŒovek biva zao; on postaje zloÄest i nepravedan; pribegava prevari, kraÄ‘i i ubistvu.

Pogledaj malo bolje oko sebe i vidi koliko se zloÄina i loÅ¡ih stvari deÅ¡ava u tvom gradu, u tvojoj zemlji, u svetu uopÅ¡te zbog novca, imovine i poseda. Vidi koliko je svet pun siromaÅ¡tva i bede, kako su hiljade lak plen bolesti i ludila, gluposti i nasilja, samoubistava i ubistava - a sve to zbog neljudskih i svirepih prilika u kojima Å¾ivimo.

Dobro je govorio mudrac, kada je rekao da je izvor sveg zla u novcu. Gde god baciÅ¡ pogled, videÄ‡eÅ¡ rÄ‘ave i poniÅ¾avajuce posledice postojanja novca, imovine, manije da se ima i zadrÅ¾i. Svakog je oduzelo ludilo grabeÅ¾a, svako hvata Å¡akom i kapom, da nagomilava koliko god moÅ¾e da bi danas mogao da uÅ¾iva, a da bi sutra imao sigurnu buduÄ‡nost.

Da li bi zbog toga mogao reÄ‡i da je Äovek loÅ¡ ? Zar nije primoran da uÄestvuje u trci za novcem zbog Å¾ivotnih okolnosti, zbog poremeÄ‡enog sistema u kojem Å¾ivimo ? NemaÅ¡ izbora - ili se trkaÅ¡ ili propadaÅ¡.

Da li je onda tvoja greÅ¡ka Å¡to te je Å¾ivot naterao da budeÅ¡ takav i da tako radiÅ¡ ? Da li je to greÅ¡ka tvoga brata, tvog suseda ili bilo koga drugog ? Pre Ä‡e biti da smo svi roÄ‘eni u ovoj otkaÄenoj Å¡emi i da moramo da se poravnamo po liniji.

Da li je onda Å¡ema ta koja ne valja ? Razmisli joÅ¡ jedanput i videÄ‡eÅ¡ da uopÅ¡te nisi loÅ¡ u duÅ¡i , ali da te uslovi Äesto teraju da radiÅ¡ stvari za koje znaÅ¡ da su loÅ¡e. Ti sÃ¢m ne bi radije tako Äinio. Kad moÅ¾eÅ¡ da si priuÅ¡tiÅ¡, trudiÅ¡ se da budeÅ¡ dobar i od pomoÄ‡i drugima, ali kada bi pratio svoju naklonost u tom smeru, ti bi zanemario svoje sopstvene interese i uskoro bi i sam bio u nestaÅ¡ici.

ZnaÄi, okolnosti Å¾ivota potiskuju i guÅ¡e instinkte ljudskosti i dobrote u nama i oguglali smo prema potrebama i bedi naÅ¡ih bliÅ¾njih.

Ovo se da videti u svakoj fazi Å¾ivota, u svim meÄ‘uljudskim odnosima, kroz sav naÅ¡ druÅ¡tveni Å¾ivot. Naravno, ukoliko bismo imali zajedniÄke interese ne bi bilo potrebe da neko nekoga iskoriÅ¡Ä‡ava, jer Å¡ta god bi donosilo dobro jednom, donosilo bi i drugom. Mi, kao ljudska biÄ‡a, kao deca jednog istog ljudskog roda, zasigurno imamo zajedniÄke interese. Kao Älanovi jednog besmislenog i zloÄinaÄkog druÅ¡tvenog uredenja, naÅ¡eg danaÅ¡njeg kapitalistiÄkog sistema, naÅ¡i interesi uopÅ¡te nisu zajedniÄki. U stvari, intresi razliÄitih klasa u druÅ¡tvu suprotstavljeni su jedan drugom, oni su nepomirljivi i neprijateljski, kao Å¡to sam pokazao u prethodnim poglavljima.

Zato ljudi iskoriÅ¡Ä‡avaju jedan drugog kada imaju ikakvu zaradu od toga, kada to narede njihovi interesi. U biznisu, u trgovini, u odnosima izmedu zaposlenog i poslodavca - svugde ceÅ¡ pronaci isti princip na delu. Svako se trudi da bude ispred svog bliÅ¾njeg. TakmiÄenje postaje suÅ¡tina kapitalistiÄkog sistema, od bankara milijardera, preko velikog proizvoÄ‘aÄa i vlasnika industrije kroz sve druÅ¡tvene i finansijske slojeve do poslednjeg radnika u fabrici. ÄŒak su i radnici primorani da se takmiÄe meÄ‘u sobom za radna mesta i bolju platu.

Na taj naÄin, naÅ¡ ceo Å¾ivot postaje borba Äoveka protiv Äoveka, klase protiv klase. U toj borbi Äovek koristi sva sredstva da postigne uspeh, da potisne drugog takmiÄara, da se izdigne iznad njega.

Jasno je da Ä‡e takvi uslovi razviti i negovati najgore osobine u Äoveku. Isto je tako jasno da zakoni Å¡tite one koji imaju moÄ‡ i uticaj, bogate i imuÄ‡ne, iako i oni meÄ‘u sobom imaju svoje bogataÅ¡e. SiromaÅ¡an mora neizbeÅ¾no da izvuÄe deblji kraj u takvoj situaciji. On Ä‡e pokuÅ¡ati da radi isto Å¡to i bogataÅ¡, ali poÅ¡to nema iste mogucnosti da uveÄ‡a svoju zaradu pod zaÅ¡titom zakona, Äesto Ä‡e to onda probati i izvan zakona i paÅ¡Ä‡e u njegovu zamku. Iako nije uradio niÅ¡ta drugaÄije od bogataÅ¡a - iskoristio je ili prevario nekoga - on je to uradio "nelegalno" i onda ga zovemo kriminalcem.

Pogledaj onog siromaÅ¡nog deÄaka na uglu ulice. Ofucan je, bled i poluizgladneo. On vidi da drugi deÄak, sin bogatih roditelja, nosi finu odeÄ‡u, dobro je uhranjen i Ä‡ak smatra da je poniÅ¾avanje igrati se sa siromaÅ¡nim detetom. DeÄko u dronjcima je besan na njega, povreÄ‘en je i mrzi bogatog deÄka. Svugde doÅ¾ivljava siromaÅ¡an deÄak iste stvari - ljudi ga zanemaruju i preziru, Äesto ga Å¡utiraju - on oseÄ‡a da ljudi ne misle da je on jednako dobar kao i bogati deÄak, prema kojem se svi ophode sa poÅ¡tovanjem i paÅ¾njom. SiromaÅ¡an deÄak postaje ogorÄen. Kada odraste, opet vidi iste stvari: bogati se poÅ¡tuju i cene, siromaÅ¡ne Å¡utiraju i zatvaraju. Tako siromaÅ¡an deÄak poÄinje polako da mrzi svoje siromaÅ¡tvo i razmiÅ¡lja o tome kako bi mogao postati bogat, kako bi mogao zaraditi novac i pokuÅ¡ava da to uradi na svaki moguÄ‡i naÄin tako Å¡to iskoriÅ¡Ä‡ava druge, jer su i drugi uvek iskoriÅ¡Ä‡avali njega, laÅ¾e i vara, a ponekad poÄini i zlocin.

Ti onda kaÅ¾eÅ¡ da je on "loÅ¡". Ne vidiÅ¡ li Å¡ta ga je uÄinilo loÅ¡im ? Zar ne vidiÅ¡ da ga je situacija u kojoj je ceo Å¾ivot Å¾iveo naÄinila onakvim kakav jeste ? Onda, zar ne vidiÅ¡ da je sistem koji odrÅ¾ava takvu situaciju veÄ‡i zloÄinac nego taj sitni lopov ? Zakon Ä‡e ga kazniti, ali zar nisu zakoni ti koji prave tako loÅ¡u situaciju i podrÅ¾avaju sistem koji stvara zloÄince ?

Razmisli o tome i videÄ‡eÅ¡ da, ako to veÄ‡ nisu zakoni sami po sebi, onda je to drÅ¾ava koja Äini zloÄin terajuÄ‡i ljude da Å¾ive u okolnostima koje ih Äine loÅ¡im. Pogledaj kako zakon i drÅ¾ava podrÅ¾avaju i Å¡tite najveÄ‡i od svih zloÄina, majku svih zloÄina, kapitalistiÄki sistem nadnice i kako i dalje nastavljaju da kaÅ¾njavaju siromaÅ¡nog kriminalca.

Da li ima razlike kada radiÅ¡ neÅ¡to loÅ¡e pod zaÅ¡titom zakona ili nezakonito ? Delo i posledice ostaju iste. Å taviÅ¡e: zakonito nedelo je joÅ¡ veÄ‡e zlo, jer uzrokuje joÅ¡ veÄ‡u bedu i nepravdu nego nezakonito. Zakonit zloÄin se sve vreme odigrava. Ne moÅ¾emo ga kazniti i poÄiniocima je lako, dok nezakonit zloÄin nije tako Äesta pojava i ima ograniÄene posledice i polje delovanja.

Ko stvara viÅ¡e bede: bogati proizvoÄ‘ac koji smanjuje plate hiljadama radnika da bi poveÄ‡ao svoju zaradu ili Äovek bez posla koji je neÅ¡to ukrao da bi mogao da se prehrani ?

Ko Äini veÄ‡e zlo: Å¾ena industrijskog magnata koji potroÅ¡i hiljadu dolara za srebrnu ogrlicu za svoju pudlicu ili slabo plaÄ‡ena devojka u magnatovoj prodavnici koja ne moÅ¾e da izdrÅ¾i iskuÅ¡enje i ukrade poneku Ä‘inÄ‘uvu ?

Ko je veÄ‡i zloÄinac: Å¡pekulant koji trguje na trÅ¾iÅ¡tu pÅ¡enice i pravi milionsku zaradu time Å¡to podiÅ¾e cenu siromahovog hleba ili beskuÄ‡nik koji poÄini neku kraÄ‘u ?

Ko je veÄ‡i Äovekov neprijatelj: pohlepni baron uglja koji je odgovoran za Å¾rtvovanje ljudskih Å¾ivota u loÅ¡e provetrenim i opasnim rudnicima ili oÄajnik koji je osuÄ‘en zbog oruÅ¾anog napada i pljaÄke ?

Nisu nezakoniti zloÄini i nedela ti koji su uzrok najveÄ‡eg zla na ovome svetu. To su zakonita nedela i nekaÅ¾njivi zloÄini, opravdani i zaÅ¡tiÄ‡eni zakonom i drÅ¾avom koji ispunjavaju svet bedom i nestaÅ¡icom, prepirkama i svaÄ‘om, klasnom borbom, krvoproliÄ‡em i razaranjem.

ÄŒesto sluÅ¡amo o zloÄinima i zloÄincima, o provalama i pljaÄkama, o napadima na osobe i imovinu. Redovi dnevne Å¡tampe puni su takvih izveÅ¡taja.

Da li Äesto sluÅ¡aÅ¡ o zloÄinima kapitalistiÄke industrije i biznisa ? Da li novine ikada piÅ¡u o stalnoj pljaÄki i kraÄ‘i u vidu niskih plata i visokih cena? Da li one piÅ¡u o Å¡iroko rasprostranjenoj bedi prouzrokovanoj trÅ¾iÅ¡nim Å¡pekulacijama, o pokvarenoj hrani, o hiljadu i jednom vidu prevare, o otimanju i zelenaÅ¡enju putem kojih biznis i trgovina bujaju ? Da li piÅ¡u o nedelima i zlu, o siromaÅ¡tvu, slomljenim srcima i srÄanim udarima i preuranjenoj smrti, o depresiji i samoubistvima koji uslede nakon stalnog mrvljenja u kapitalistiÄkom sistemu?
Da li piÅ¡u o brizi i mukama hiljada onih koji su izbaÄeni sa posla i niko ne mari da li umiru ili su joÅ¡ Å¾ivi ? Da li govore o mizernim nadnicama koje se plaÄ‡aju Å¾enama i devojkama u naÅ¡oj industriji, o slaboj ishrani koja primorava mnoge na prostituciju da bi mogle da preÅ¾ive ? Da li ti ikada priÄaju o armiji nezaposlenih koje kapitalizam drÅ¾i da bi ti oteli hleb iz usta kada kreneÅ¡ da Å¡trajkujeÅ¡ za bolju platu? Da li govore da je nezaposlenost, sa svim bolestima srca, patnjama i bedi koja je prati, direktno izazvana kapitalistiÄkim sistemom? Da li ti ikada kaÅ¾u kako rad plaÄ‡enog roba pretvaraju u zaradu gospodara industrije ? Kako se rad i Å¾ivot traÄ‡e u glupoj kapitalistiÄkoj utrci i neplaniranoj proizvodnji ?

Naime, oni ti govore dosta toga o zloÄinima i zloÄincima, o "loÅ¡em", o "zlu" u Äoveku, posebno meÄ‘u niÅ¾im slojevima radnika, ali zato ne kaÅ¾u da kapitalistiÄki uslovi izazivaju veÄ‡inu naÅ¡ih zloÄina i da je sam kapitalizam najveÄ‡i zloÄin od svih: on satre viÅ¡e Å¾ivota u jednom jedinom danu nego sve ubice zajedno. Razaranje Å¾ivota i imovine od strane zloÄinaca od poÄetka sveta je deÄja igra u poreÄ‘enju sa deset miliona ubijenih i dvadeset miliona ranjenih i neizmerivom pustoÅ¡i i bedom stvorenom za vreme samo jednog kapitalistickog dogaÄ‘aja, nedavnog Svetskog rata. [Napomena prevodioca: misli se na Prvi svetski rat.] To zapanjujuÄ‡e pustoÅ¡enje i pokolj bili su zakonito dete kapitalizma, kao Å¡to su i svi ratovi i pohodi rezultat suprotstavljenih finansijskih i trgovinskih interesa internacionalne burÅ¾oazije. To je bio rat zbog zarade, kao Å¡to su Vudrou Vilson i njegova klasa posle Äak i priznali.

Kao Å¡to vidiÅ¡, opet se sve vrti oko zarade. Pretvaranje ljudskog mesa i krvi u zaradu u ime patriotizma.

"Patriotizam!", diÅ¾eÅ¡ glas, "pa to je plemenit cilj!".

"A nezaposlenost", pita tvoj prijatelj, "da li je kapitalizam i za nju odgovoran ? Zar je to greÅ¡ka mog Å¡efa Å¡to on nema posla za mene ?"

----

[[zb:Aleksandar Berkman, Å ta je komunistiÄki anarhizam?|sadrÅ¾aj]]

Charter/Sources/Best cases

2006-04-04T08:21:32Z

Styrofoam Sam: Charter/Sources/Best cases moved to Charter/Sources/Best cases filled with styromfoam

'''Best cases''' are probably scaled-down [[visions]] or the opposite of your most-dreaded [[threats]]. They may, also, really be your own best vision of where [[The future of Wikipedia]] might lead. Don't be conservative. What you write here should really be your own personal best idea of where it could go, and what would personally motivate you to work hard with people you hate, for no money, to achieve it.

The [[status quo]] is assessed in terms of [[worst cases]] - no one cares if you believe a best case is being achieved and if they did they wouldn't be checking the status quo - but [[threats]], [[visions]] and best cases help provide context and most imporantly set [[vocabulary]] in which the [[status quo]] is described. Nothing original can be said in [[status quo]] - if it isn't mentioned in one of the other files it can't be mentioned there.

==Short term==

===Dedicated admins===
The Militia, 20 users granted sysop status, defend the users' [[visions]] to the near-death and all of these best cases are realized, and none of the [[threats]] come to pass.

===Full representation===
[[The ideal Wikipedia board]] is actually recruited and represents a range of cultures and biases, especially with respect to what or who is a 'person', and how authorship and anonymity should be handled. These honest differences are settled with open debate and non-unanimous consensus, and wikipedia authors are generally comfortable with the level of security of person guaranteed by policy.

===Sensitivity to other points of view===
Hard to follow, but what about just the best case of [[w:symbiosis]] between [[troll]]s and even [http://disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=little_tin_god_sysop absurd sysops] (within limits) more or less [http://www.consumerium.org/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Etiquette as they discuss here]?

==Long term==

===Lasting success===
The Wikipedia project continues to evolve. Its success is sufficient to be useful as a prototype/reference for derivative applications or projects seeking startup funding via traditional methods, volunteerism, or some viable combination. [[user:mirwin]]

===Virtue as its own reward===
The [[w:anti-globalization movement|anti-globalization movement]] respects wiki as a [[neutral point of view]] and doesn't flood it with 3000 versions of [[natural point of view]] all at once. Instead, they recognize that their views are treated with as much respect as funded published academics, and help work out a rigorous protocol for dealing with unpublished or unpublishable literature, work that challenges the validity of science itself, or calls for ends to professions. The wiki becomes an icon of fairness for all those with heretical views, but somehow never becomes anathema to academics, who check it to see that their work is fairly represented, fix minor errors, and get into good "talk" with their most fervent opponents.

Wiki gradually becomes the center of discourse on controversial topics because of its vaunted fairness and its commitment to approaching as close to a natural point of view as the neutral point of view of the target [[three billionth user]] will permit. Other encylopedias gradually give up or are bought out by donors who like wiki — and wiki, rather than a search engine, becomes the first stop for most researchers.

Gradually, universities fade away as centers of research but flourish as centers of ethical training, moral example, brainstorming, wild and uninhibited art, and true creative vision. Nobel Prize winners thank wiki on the stand as they accept their rewards, and historians credit it with breaking down barriers between academic, populist, and economic views.

==Extended future==

===Holism===
The [[w:foundation ontology|foundation ontology]] of each major culture is described, e.g. the [[w:particle physics standard model|particle physics standard model]] which serves as the [[w:particle physics foundation ontology|particle physics foundation ontology]] for other sciences, [[w:medieval Catholic foundation ontology|medieval Catholic foundation ontology]], [[w:classical Chinese foundation ontology|classical Chinese foundation ontology]], etc., and likewise for each [[w:cosmology|cosmology]]. Strong respect for the terms used in each culture brings the best scholars in the world here. Constant effort keeps [[vocabulary]] manageable, and under 4000-5000 words for introductory articles - those with the shortest names. The [[three billionth user]] comes to the wiki in 2007 with English as a second language, very little time and a low bandwidth connection, and walks away with the most useful description of an ecologically-sensitive garden they could possibly have got in that time...

===The history of Wikipedia===
Before Wikipedia was created, many people communicated by something known as the Internet, which can be thought of as a primitive form of Wikipedia. However the Internet had many severe limitations, such as the inability of anyone, other than the original author, to correct outdated information on the Internet, and it was often hard to find useful information.

When Wikipedia was created, it was actually just a small part of the Internet. It was intended to be an encyclopædia, where anyone could edit any information at any time. Although it is hard to imagine the point of information that people can't even edit, it was actually a relatively new idea at the time. At the time, it was very limited. The information was divided into articles, each article with a different name. Links between articles had to be added manually, and articles could only contain text and pictures. It was possible to accidentally add inconsistant or redundant information.

Despite the limitations, Wikipedia was by far the most effective system available, and therefore quickly became very popular. However, free nature of the Wikipedia met opposition from many large companies, which relied on patents and copyrights for profit. A computer company called Microsoft openly criticized Wikipedia, and announced that they would not support Wikipedia. Soon after, they did release a browser called Wikipedia Explorer, but it was already too late to stop them from going out of buisness, most people had already swiched to Wikipedia-friendly operating systems such as Linux, and using popular browsers such as Wikera and Wikiscape. Later, several other companies compiled a list of copyright violations, and attempted to get a court order to shut down Wikipedia. However, on the day of the trial in the US, wikipedians actually did shut down all US-based Wikipedia servers, and blocked all traffic between the US, and foreign Wikipedia servers. With all US-based Wikipedia shut down, the court had no way to access the case files, and the case was dropped. US-based Wikipedia was restored the same day. To avoid similar embarrasment, all pending European court cases against Wikipedia were also dropped.

Ironically, what is considered to be the largest single terrorist attack ever occurred on Wikipedia day, the same year Wikipedia was celebrating having replaced 90% of the Internet. Although noone was directly hurt by the action, all 375 major Wikipedia servers worldwide were simultaneously destroyed by time delayed explosives. The simultaneous destruction of all major Wikipedia servers caused pings of up to 20 seconds, and most video and virtual reality interfaces failed due to lack of bandwidth. Only about 700 major wikivision channels were still broadcasting. This tragic event is estimated to have caused tens of thousands of deaths, with public transport crashing, and doctors being disconnected in the middle of operations, as some hospitals still didn't even have their own wiki nodes. The biggest disruptions were in the third world countries, large parts of which still had to connect to Wikipedia via the Internet. It was several days before all Wikipedia servers had been replaced. All vital facilities, without exception, had minor wikipedia servers, or at least several wiki nodes, installed. As a safety precaution against similar events, several million medium wikipedi servers were built worldwide.

Breakthoughs in Wikipedia protocol research were developed, allowing easier communication with Wikipedia, and increasing the rate of adaption and learning of Wikipedia. Dolphins could communicate with Wikipedia hundreds of times faster than before, and Wikipedia could now also adapt to the rather confused human brain waves as well as the clear focused dolphin brain waves, allowing humans to communicate directly with Wikipedia.

With the breakthroughs in Wikipedia protocol research, researchers set Wikipedia to analyse space for possible signals from extraterrestrial life. Surprisingly, they found signals coming from within the star system, which turned out to be from an alien satellite. Wikipedia is informed that with the creation of itself by humanity, humanity is now to be considered an intelligent life form, and now qualifies for the basic rights of all civilizations in the universe, and the human-created part of Wikipedia combines with universal Wikipedia. Humans and dolphins become a valued member of the universe, and are granted all the rights we are acustomed to now, such as the right to visit all civilizations and all places in the universe.

----

Wow. And what is cool is that someone *really believes that* since it is not in [[visions]] where we put things we don't believe yet. Isn't that inspiring?

==See also==
* [[the future of Wikipedia]]

== References ==

Adapted from the Meta-Wikipedia article, "best cases" http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/best_cases , used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

Anarchopedia talk:en:direct democracy

2006-04-04T08:21:29Z

Styrofoam Sam: Anarchopedia talk:en:direct democracy moved to Anarchopedia talk:en:direct democracy filled with styromfoam

[http://www.google.com/custom?q=democrisy&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=L%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.diagnosis2012.co.uk%2Fdiregn%7E1.jpg%3BLH%3A149%3BLW%3A113%3BGL%3A2%3BBGC%3Ablack%3BT%3Acyan%3BLC%3ACC%2C99%2CFF%3BVLC%3Alime%3BALC%3Ared%3BGALT%3Ared%3BGFNT%3ACC%2C99%2Cff%3BGIMP%3Afuschia%3BAH%3Acenter%3BS%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.diagnosis2012.co.uk%3B&domains=www.diagnosis2012.co.uk 169 hits for democrisy]

Anarchopedia:en:direct democracy

2006-04-04T08:21:28Z

Styrofoam Sam: Anarchopedia:en:direct democracy moved to Anarchopedia:en:direct democracy filled with styromfoam

While all kinds of things are said [[Anarchopedia:We|by any of us]] in [[Anarchopedia:Itself]] about [[politics]] and [[civics]], the actual [[Anarchopedia:Policy]] should be set as much as possible by [[direct democracy]]. This suggests we mostly decide by [[Anarchopedia:Referenda]].

== seeking consensus ==

However, referendum questions don't arise from nowhere, and the language they employ is also not strictly neutral, and requires some buy-in and deliberate consultation and [[outreach]] to find [[consensus]]. [[Anarchopedia:Policy]] must accept "that it is possible to characterize disputes fairly, so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion)." - one of only two assumptions shared with Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view". However, that doesn't make it easy:

This requires some [[consensus democracy]] and [[deliberative democracy]] and some elements even of [[representative democracy]] to make work. In most situations, these forms of democracy are preferable to [[voting systems]]:

*[[Consensus decision making]] should apply where a policy is constrained, where [[Anarchopedia:Advice]] is offered that needs to draw on everyone's knowledge and experience and instincts, or where we have a lot of time and not many people who care - such as the exact wording of some article that is not part of [[Anarchopedia:Policy]]. A [[consensus democracy]] may also be preferred within [[Anarchopedia:Faction]]s to make joint decisions that affect only themselves. See below for some.

== democracy frames disputes ==

*[[Deliberative democracy]] should apply to [[Anarchopedia:Question]]s such as the [[Anarchopedia:FAQ]], or any other open-ended issue where we don't need to make any one decision fast. Bottom-up accumulation of [[Anarchopedia:Policy]] and ratification into [[what Anarchopedia is not]] can continue in this way until someone objects to or disputes a point. ''No [[faction]]s required yet! Really this is what goes on, on talk pages.''

*[[Direct democracy]] can be invoked directly as [[Anarchopedia:Referenda]], in cases where it's generally agreed that the [[Anarchopedia:Question]] is clear, and the [[Anarchopedia:Advice]] offered about it has all been heard. Some [[voting system]] needs to be chosen for this. ''Please review them.''

== factions engage in disputes ==

The above should deal with 99% of cases, including overt political debates. The rest is for the other 1%, which include [[epistemology]] and [[ontology]] problems that just aren't resolvable without some formal [[dispute resolution]]:

To avoid generating some elaborate [[hierarchy]] like Wikipedia's "Arbitration", however, "we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them." - another assumption we share with Wikipedia's "neutral point of view". We only report disputes. To do so efficiently requires some work:

*[[Representative democracy]] starts to matter when disputes have arisen and are consistently recurring and there are so many people involved that no one has time to thoroughly understand each other in depth and must rely on some intermediaries and filters - this is when the [[Anarchopedia:Faction]]s really are needed. Three functions that they can or should be called on to perform:

::An [[IP block]] ideally would be up to a user's own faction to decide - it's not something that should be done to one by an enemy who is not taking your political views into account. It should be your friends saying you've gone too far. If you have no friends, well, you are a faction unto yourself, and if you don't declare or state your agenda, maybe you're [[Anarchopedia:Enemy]]?

::Before any [[Anarchopedia:Referenda]], each [[Anarchopedia:Faction]] should be called on to ratify the wording of the question at hand. Whether or not they have participated in the deliberations beforehand. If they at least have a chance to object that the question is politically slanted or wrongly stated, or that the time of the choice is related to some particular group's agenda, the odds that they will respect the will of the majority afterwards is higher.

:::Also, each faction may get a certain number of [[Anarchopedia:Referenda]] to propose, like one per month, to bring issues that they care about to the fore. A condition of this might be that the issue is very clearly stated so that there is no [[terminology dispute]] about what is actually being decided.

::When there is a dispute about the accuracy of reporting of a particular group's views or positions, the [[Anarchopedia:Faction]] that holds the most similar views should be the one that makes final decisions about the wording, as they are the ones most likely to make the most subtle distinctions that the other factions don't recognize or respect.

There are default factions created by software: [[Anarchopedia:Sysops]] and the [[Anarchopedia:Vandals]] they seek out and [[block IP]] of. Ideally this is all they do. Sysops should be people trusted by all non-vandal factions to decide what [[vandalism]] is, and they should lose that power if any faction disputes their judgment at all. Very few of these people are really needed:

Maybe just one [[Lowest Troll]], implying that [[Anarchopedia:Trolls]] (those generally unconcerned with offending anyone, and perhaps somewhat eccentric) are the ones who must decide who they will, and won't, consider a troll not a vandal.

== Followup ==

When there are more [[Anarchopedia:Recruits]] with [[personal experience]] in [[large public wiki]]s to share, [[Anarchopedia:We|we]] should discuss the above. Ideally we'd involve at least two, maybe three, members of
each of the [[Anarchopedia:Greens]], [[Anarchopedia:Golds]], [[Anarchopedia:Blues]], [[Anarchopedia:Reds]], [[Anarchopedia:Pinks]], [[Anarchopedia:Elves]], [[Anarchopedia:Black bloc]] and [[Anarchopedia:Trolls]]. These are just names for sample [[Anarchopedia:faction]]s that might get involved in the above eventually. They can change later.

See [[direct democracy]], [[grassroots democracy]], [[anticipatory democracy]], [[participatory democracy]] and [[voting systems]] for more background on how to organize [[Anarchopedia:Policy]] democratically.

==External Links==

* [http://joi.ito.com/static/emergentdemocracy.html Joichi Ito's paper on Emergent Democracy]

en:e

2006-04-04T08:21:26Z

Styrofoam Sam: en:e moved to en:e filled with styromfoam

[[lx:en:equality|equality]],

USA VT Chittenden product list

2006-04-04T08:21:25Z

Styrofoam Sam: USA VT Chittenden product list moved to USA VT Chittenden product list filled with styromfoam

This page is part of a project to share information about retailers by region, in order to support the [[Wikipedia:Buy local]] movement. This "Product list" page lists product categories for a particular geographic "region". Under each product category is a list of links to store in the region that supply that product category. A [[Region list]] provides links to "Region" pages, which in turn
* Garden supplies
** [[Store profile USA VT Chittenden Aubuchon 1]]
* Home hardware
** [[Store profile USA VT Chittenden Aubuchon 1]]
* Paint Supplies
** [[Store profile USA VT Chittenden Aubuchon 1]]

GFDL corpus access provider

2006-04-04T08:21:25Z

Styrofoam Sam: GFDL corpus access provider moved to GFDL corpus access provider filled with styromfoam

A '''GFDL corpus access provider''' or '''GFDLcap''' is a [[web service]] or other [[net media]], or potentially even [[email]] or [[CD-ROM]] distributor, that provides access to a large portion of the [[GFDL corpus]] [[open content]].

== current options ==

The best known of these is [[Wikipedia]]. There is often some confusion between that project and the corpus. ''This confusion is not only tolerated but created by its [[sysop power structure]], many of whom are implicated in [[sysop vandalism]]. Wikipedia likes to pretend it is the only such access provider.''

[[Wikinfo]] and [[Anarchopedia:Itself]] are lesser known '''access provider'''s, in stricter compliance with the GFDL, to the degree that is possible given that it relies on [[XML export]] by [[Wikipedia]] for most content.

[[Wikinfo]] takes a [[sympathetic point of view]], refusing to mix critical and sympathetic views in an article. ''This is a direct challenge to the [[neutral point of view]] [[wiki ideology]] that is promoted by Wikipedia, since that view gives maximum power to those who claim to be 'neutral' but are in a position of technologically granted power.''

[[Anarchopedia:Itself|Here at Anarchopedia]] [[Anarchopedia:We|we - whoever that is]] keep the critical and sympathetic views together but do not put a [[sysop power structure]] in charge of editorial decisions like [[deletion policy]] or who is a [[troll]] and what [[alleged or collective identity]] they do and do not share. ''See [[Anarchopedia:troll IP]], [[Anarchopedia:troll ID]] and [[Anarchopedia:faction]] and [[Anarchopedia:tendency]] for more on these questions and how we resolve Wikipedia's many authority and hierarchy problems in a more democratic way.''

Other corpus access providers focus on particular subsets of the material, and do not have facilities to automatically import via the Wikipedia interface:
*[[Consumerpedia]]
*[[Disinfopedia]]
*[[Consumerium]]
*[[Metaweb]]

In addition, there are many [[Wikipedia mirror]]s that do not provide edit access but read-only access. These might or might not be considered to be true '''access providers''' but in any case some of them, like [[NationMaster]] have added a lot of information that may be of interest for some purposes.

== challenges ==

There are several challenges common to all '''GFDL corpus access provider'''s:
*agreeing on a [[wikitext standard]] and priorities to guide [[wiki code]] changes to accomodate it; ''[[GetWiki]] and [[MediaWiki]] are so far the only options.''
*meeting the rigid terms of the [[GFDL]] itself, especially with regard to [[attribution]] and [[source access]], i.e. to the original text written in the [[wikitext standard]], not the [[HTML]] form into which it is rendered for [[printable page|print]]s or presentation.
::lack of [[interwiki identity standard]] makes attribution quite unreliable
::having one [[standard wiki URI]] from which to retrieve the source, that can be easily predicted and made permanent
::[[interwiki link standard]]s so that differently-purposed or POV'd [[large public wiki]]s can link to each other
*resolving [[point of view]] differences, to which there are several approaches:
::[[neutral point of view]] tries to do this always within one article, attributing disputed claims, but of course, a [[systemic bias]] then applies
::[[multiple point of view]] tries to separate views into articles of their own, e.g. as at [[Metaweb]] or via the "faction" system proposed at some wikis
::[[sympathetic point of view]] tries to separate positive and negative views, whatever that means
*dealing with [[server load]], especially for [[full text search]]
*inadequate PHP-based software like [[MediaWiki]] and [[GetWiki]] - a concern [[Metaweb]]'s supporters are paying particular attention to
*compiling and [[collaborative filter]]ing to present adapted articles - a concern [[Consumerium]] takes very seriously
*[[governance]] problems in deal with a very large group of editors, ''see [[rule of 150]] for one possible limit to this''
*Tracking with change to the [[GFDL corpus]] as a whole, so that the best material can be copied into those services interested in presenting it to their users.

== future integration ==

There are proposals extant to track all changes to the GFDL corpus in any of the known '''access providers''', and perhaps simplify signup for [[jabber]] or other services that could serve as basis for [[interwiki identity standard]]. Such proposals are simplified by an [[interwiki link standard]] and [[standard wiki URI]], though they are not strictly required simply for tracking.

There are also proposals to work with [[FSF]] and [[Creative Commons]] much more closely to avoid abuses of the [[GFDL]]'s terms and spirit.

== External links ==

* [http://www.gnu.org/encyclopedia/announcement.html Richard Stallman's initial plans for the GFDL corpus]
* [http://www.arena.org.ar/gnupedia-historia.html History of the first GFDLcap, GNUpedia] (Spanish - [http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.arena.org.ar%2Fgnupedia-historia.html+&langpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools english translation])

Probably the best reference on this question is [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/GFDL_corpus_access_provider en: CreativeCommons: GFDL corpus access provider]] since [[Creative Commons]] and their [[Common Content]] initiative and [[CC-by-sa]] license provide a clear alternative to [[GFDL]] and they have a strong motive to work closely with all such access providers to achieve [[dual license]]d GFDL and [[CC-by-sa content]].

en:opposition to authority

2006-04-04T08:21:23Z

Styrofoam Sam: en:opposition to authority moved to en:opposition to authority filled with styromfoam

'''Opposition to authority''' typically looks like a crime to those who support '''[[authority]]'''. A trivial example is [[troll-sysop struggle]]s which are characterized as criminal by [[sysop power structure]] even though most [[trolls]] are harmless. Serious '''anti-authoritarian''' action may follow lines like the ones at [[How to organize an anarchist group]], first published at the old [[Recyclopedia]] (which was apparently run by a mole for '''authority''' who hated it).

Charter/Sources/Visions

2006-04-04T08:21:20Z

Styrofoam Sam: Charter/Sources/Visions moved to Charter/Sources/Visions filled with styromfoam

This page describes only your unrealistic '''visions''' for the wikipedia. Visions are extreme hallucinatory daydreaming, too-good-to-be-true ideals with high impact but no measurable probability - because they can't happen. They're fantasy. No one believes in them. Not even you. They're fiction.

The ideal vision is something you have never admitted to anybody at all, for fear they would laugh at you or drastically degrade you to other people for "not being realistic" or "ignoring reality" or some such cynical claim.

If you have ever heard a truly compelling vision of what the world could be "if only..." from anyone else in your life, this is the place to finally write it down. Anonymity is best since you may hold back if others know your name. A good vision would contain fantasy elements from all utopias you ever believed in, and several that you laughed at, and riduculed other people for.

If you are describing something that you consider a reasonable goal, that you believe ''can'' ever actually happen to any substantial degree, or has a measurable probability, it is a [[best cases]] and ''not'' a "vision". Be very careful with this distinction - [[best cases]] are something we allocate real [[w:human capital]] and (indirectly) [[w:natural resources]] to get done... a single good vision, however, would break us, were we even to really attempt it.

Enter examples of visions that far exceed anything ever considered as [[The Future of Wikipedia]], include all of the compatible [[best cases]], and render wiki immune to all [[threats]] in the bargain.

--------

The few language-using [[w:Great Apes]] and the last [[w:Stone Age Amazonians]] become the honorary editorial board, new editors have to prove their subject is relevant to their satisfaction, and wiki moves its legal headquarters into the [[w:Amazon rainforest]] for tax reasons. A working wiki editorial board from [[w:civil society]] grows into a functioning [[w:world government]] using wild rainforest acres as its banking standard - the more of these you preserve, the richer you are. Aliens finally reveal that this level of wisdom was what they were waiting to see before they revealed themselves. All medical technology and body modification methods are revealed to humans who can take their place among civilized species of the universe. Offhand, an alien ambassador admits that all humans would have been tortured to death in medical experiments if not for wiki deciding to "respect the next species up the ladder the way that you wanted to be respected by us superior types". Everyone gets a good laugh out of the last [[w:particle accelerator]] being turned into a new age gambling casino... and golfers voluntarily give up the game, gollums give up AI and nanotech, in favor of dancing, singing, gardening, extremely creative sex, vegan cooking. Great articles on all these things with step-by-step instructions appear in wiki, so fast that no one could keep up, and they are edited and improved by cliques oriented around [[value systems]] who each keep their own fork of wiki. [[Vocabulary]] is miraculously kept low enough that a very clever ape or very dumb human or someone who learned English from [[w:Zero Wing]] can understand the instructions.

:Also, all of these people, primates and extraterrestrials realize that [[Wikipedia is not Wiki]]. :)

----

[[w:Wikipedians]] never sling personal insults at each other, no matter how much they disagree. NOTE: this vision is much harder to achieve than the other two, since it conflicts with various personal agendas.

----

At some point, perhaps at [[Version 2.0]], the [[Wikimedia Foundation]] engraves the entire contents of Wikipedia and Wiktionary in all languages onto a number of stone tablets. This is done in honor of Wikipedia's [[w:Ptolemaic Dynasty|Ptolemaic]] [[Original Wikipedia|heritage]] and to preserve the entire accumulated [[w:Wikipedia:encyclopedic|encyclopedic]] knowledge of [[w:human|human]]ity. The initial goal is to send the tablet sets (''lithipedias'') for each individual language to their language's native region; with the help of a generous donor, however, the Foundation is able to provide each country with lithipedias in their primary languages.

A series of proposals are developed and submitted to the [[w:European Space Agency|European Space Agency]] and the [[w:Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency|Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency]]. Through coordination on Meta and the agencies' gracious support, a set of lithipedias suitable for especially harsh conditions is produced, each to be sent on one of several interstellar probes. Luminaries wax about achieving the noble goals of preserving history for humankind and educating [[w:extraterrestrial life|race]]s across the [[w:galaxy|galaxy]] (as yet still undetected). [[Wikipedians]] look to the future with hope.

This hope is to be short-lived, however. International tensions are high; a country formerly known as the [[w:United States of America|United States of America]] (now officially the Democratic States of America) and referred to by most other countries as the "rogue states of America", "Rogue States", or simply "The States" has become increasingly arrogant and authoritarian in all affairs. Confident in its supremacy and resentful of other countries' policies, it claims governance of the [[w:United Nations|United Nations]] and declares war upon the [[w:European Union|European Union]] when they oppose.

The survivors of this war, the largest in history, are few. [[w:Area denial|Area denial]] measures far outlast the combatants; a critical level of damage is reached and then exceeded. In two months [[w:civilization|civilization]] collapses across the world. As hundreds of millions starve, the last desperate battles are fought until exhaustion.

In the decades that follow, the lithipedias prove their worth and are looked on as an endless, tragic fount of knowledge. Lifespans are short, however, and soon the previous civilizations gain legendary, then mythical status. It is as though humanity had risen against the gods and been destroyed for so doing; the lithipedias are believed to have been created by the gods afterward so that a new and wiser civilization might emerge.

It is in this setting, then, that one of the probes returns to Earth. The excited witnesses to its descent from the heavens eventually discover how to open it, finding a single, familiar stone tablet inside. They bring it to their [[WikiReader|LithiReader]] at once, and wait for the new message from the gods to be revealed.

Frustrating weeks pass as the Reader searches the tablet for the wisdom contained within. Eventually cursing his eyesight, he travels to the village of another Reader, who is also unsuccessful. She remembers a term used in certain rare texts, though, a term whose literal meaning was clear but which no Reader had been able to explain in any language of the lithipedia.

In time, similar tablets were found. Readers came to loathe the blank pages for the time they wasted, but still more they hated the tablets filled with indecipherable scripts. Thus, when the Outsiders finally arrived, humanity knew them as Vandals or Trolls and they were met with enmity rather than friendship.

== References ==

Adapted from the Meta-Wikipedia article, "visions" http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/visions , used under the GNU Free Documentation License.

lx:es:anarquÃa

2006-04-04T08:21:18Z

Styrofoam Sam: lx:es:anarquía moved to lx:es:anarquía filled with styromfoam

== anarquÃa: ==

*Ser sin gobierno; ser sin estructura o regulaciÃ³n

(nombre)
----
{{lx:anarchy}}
<div><small>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:template:lx:anarchy|action=edit}} edit]</small></div>

lx:en:talk

2006-04-04T08:21:17Z

Styrofoam Sam: talk moved to talk filled with styromfoam

Talk is a [[verb]]. When you talk you open your [[mouth]] and noises come out, and when people [[hear]] the noises they interpret them as [[language]] which can convey [[ideas]].

Anarchopedia - User contributions [en]

Anarchopedia:en:Elves

Straw man

it:a

lx:en:democracy

Black bloc

Sparewheel

it:n

mechanistic bias

capitalist system

Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

Talk:Charter/Drafts/Trifecta

Charter/Sources/Worst cases

Aleksandar Berkman, Å ta je komunistiÄki anarhizam: Kako sistem radi

Charter/Sources/Best cases

Anarchopedia talk:en:direct democracy

Anarchopedia:en:direct democracy

en:e

USA VT Chittenden product list

GFDL corpus access provider

en:opposition to authority

Charter/Sources/Visions

lx:es:anarquÃ­a

lx:en:talk

Aleksandar Berkman, Å ta je komunistiÄki anarhizam: Kako sistem radi

lx:es:anarquÃa